Full text of "Visual Quality of Built Environments in National Parks"

See other formats

I 29.2: V 82/6

C'ierT1S0n Univers

3 1604 013 532 413

PUBLIC DOCUMENT*
DEPOSITORY ITEM

JAN 27 1994

CLEMSON
LIBRARY

Built Environments

National Parks

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service
nAn Printed on Recycled Paper

AND NOW

. prevention of all constructions markedly inharmonious with the scenery or which
would unnecessarily obscure, distort, or detract from the scenery.

Frederick Law Olmsted, 1865
The Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove

Some years ago a park visitor said to me, "I don 't know how you guys do it, but the

minute I enter a national park I sense that I am in a place that 's special. " The

experience he described comes from a variety of clues; the treatment of road surface

and road side, the quality and clarity of the signs, the architecture of the buildings, the

standard of maintenance, the elimination of clutter, the accessibility of information.

Not all of these clues are visual, of course. Some spring from the symbolic importance of
the parks, but even the power of these symbols can be diminished by poor design, or

shoddy maintenance, or confusing information.

Like gravity, quality tends to downward movement. One more sign, a poorly patched

road, badly matched architecture, worn-out furnishings accumulate over time. To

preserve the sense that a national park unit is "special" we must step back from our

day-to-day activities and see the results of the accumulation. The purpose of this report

is to cause you to look at your park and its accumulation. Does the built environment

strengthen the "special" character of the place? If not, what can be improved?

Denis P. Galvin

BOUT THIS REPORT

This publication is about the visual quality of
structures built to accommodate visitors and park
administration and management in the national
parks. It is about the relationship of structures to
park resources and the complex systems of natu-
ral, prehistoric, and historic resources for which
parks are established.

The resources being protected are representative
of the finest and most important elements of the
nation's natural and cultural heritage, so it is es-
sential that added structures neither detract from
nor compete with them. Every effort should be
made to provide built environments worthy of
the park resources.

This report is intended to raise awareness of and
sensitivity to the importance of the visual quality

of the built environment in parks. It provides a re-
view and discussion of visual quality strategies
and tools for planning, designing, and managing
- strategies and tools that are drawn from both
park and nonpark experiences - and illustrates,
using case studies, applications in selected units
of the national park system.

The intended audience for this report includes
anyone who can influence visual quality. This in-
cludes directors, superintendents, rangers, inter-
pretive specialists, chiefs of maintenance, and
facilities managers, as well as landscape archi-
tects, architects, planners, and engineers.

ISTORY AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report reflects the interests and concerns of
Park Service managers, designers, and planners
about developed area visual quality. It has its
roots in discussions between the late John (Jay)
Bright of the National Park Service and Ervin
Zube from the University of Arizona. Those dis-
cussions, starting in 1985, led to a proposal to
then Denver Service Center (DSC) Manager Denis
Galvin (now Associate Director for Planning and
Development) for an assessment of the nature
and extent of concern with visual quality in devel-
oped areas. Continued support for the project
came from DSC Managers Patten and Reynolds
and from NPS Directors Mott and Ridenour. In
1988 Director Mott appointed a Visual Quality In-
itiative Advisory Committee, chaired by Jay Bright
and including David Mihalic, Irvin Dunton, Terry
Carlstrom, and John Teichert. Shortly thereafter
Geoff Swan was added. Activities undertaken in
support of the initiative include

■ site surveys of the visual quality of built envi-
ronments in selected NPS units

■ a mail survey of NPS personnel attitudes about
visual quality in developed areas

■ reviews of the history of visual quality con-
cerns and techniques for addressing visual
quality in built environments

■ presentations at DSC design workshops, at a
regional directors' meeting, and at regional su-
perintendents' and maintenance-facilities man-
agers' meetings

All of the above contributed to the development
of the project and to this report.

Others deserving credit for the project include
Tom Dall, Rich Giamberdine (who took over the
DSC management responsibilities following Jay
Bright's retirement), Carol Whittaker (who served
as a research assistant for the project at the
University of Arizona), and Joe Crystal, Rick
Dorrance, Dick Morishige, and Dennis Nagao.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge the vision
of Jay Bright in getting it started. This publication
is dedicated to his memory.

Ervin H. Zube

111

I HE AUTHORS

Joseph Crystal, Chief, Landscape Architecture
Section, Eastern Design Team, Branch of Design,
Denver Service Center

Rick Dorrance, Landscape Architect, Eastern
Team, Western Pennsylvania Partnership, Denver
Service Center

John C. Hall, LDR International, Inc., Columbia,
Maryland

Luther Propst, Executive Director, Sonoran
Institute, Tucson, Arizona

Mary Schmid, Research Associate, Sonoran
Institute, Tucson, Arizona

James E. Sell, Department of Geography and
Regional Development, University of Arizona,
Tucson

Geoff Swan, Senior Landscape Architect, Pacific
Northwest Region

John Teichert, Assistant Superintendent, Planning
and Development, Olympic National Park

Marvin Wall, Project Manager/Architect, Western
Team, Branch of Design, Denver Service Center

Carol Whittaker, Research Specialist, Community
Services and Economic Development, University
of Arizona, Tucson

Ervin H. Zube, Professor, Renewable Natural
Resources and Adjunct Professor, Department of
Geography and Regional Development,
University of Arizona, Tucson

THER CONTRIBUTORS

GRAPHIC CONSULTANTS

Design Workshop, Inc., Denver, Colorado,
Manassas National Battlefield Park, computer
simulations, wire diagram, animations, and realis-
tic imaging simulations.

John Hall, LDR, Inc., Columbia Maryland,
Everglades National Park, graphics and photo-
graphs

Jeffrey Joyce, Jeffrey Joyce Design, Denver
Colorado, Andersonville National Historical Park,
Visitor Center/Museum drawing

Bruce Soehngen, Illustrator/Landscape/Architect,
DHM, Inc., Denver, Colorado, Sandy Hook Area
"E" Beach Center, Illustrations

Dennis Nagao, Landscape Architect, Office of
Professional and Employee Development, Denver
Service Center

Alfred J. Thornton, Architect, Eastern Team,
Western Pennsylvania Partnership, Denver
Service Center

Technical Information Center, Denver Service
Center

PUBLICATION SERVICES

Kathy Dimont, Writer-Editor, Denver Service
Center

Joan Huff, Visual Information Technician, Denver
Service Center

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Randy Fong, Architect, Western Team, Branch of
Design, Denver Service Center

Richard Giamberdine, Senior Landscape
Architect, Office of Professional and Employee
Development, Denver Service Center

Larry Morrison, Supervisory Visual Information
Specialist, Denver Service Center

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2012 with funding from

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation

http://archive.org/details/visualqualityofbOOnati

ONTENTS

SECTION I: PERSPECTIVES ON VISUAL QUALITY

THE SEARCH FOR HARMONY IN PARK DEVELOPMENTS 3
FROM RUSTIC DESIGN TO ... ? 3
EARLY CONCERNS FOR HARMONY 3
CHANGING DIRECTIONS AFTER WORLD WAR II 4
DEFINING HARMONIOUS RELATIONSHIPS 6
WHY IS VISUAL QUALITY IMPORTANT? 7
RESEARCH ON DEVELOPED AREA VISUAL QUALITY 7
LOOKING BACKWARD AND FORWARD 9
REFERENCES 9

WHO THINKS WHAT ABOUT THE VISUAL QUALITY OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
IN NATIONAL PARKS 11

SO WHO CARES? 11

THE SURVEY 11

CONCLUSIONS 19

RED BRICK AND ONLY SO TALL: LAW, AESTHETICS, AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 20
INTRODUCTION 20
HISTORY OF AESTHETICS IN LAW 20
JUDICIAL PRECEDENT 21
CONTEMPORARY LAW 22
JUDICIAL REVIEW 23

DESIGN GUIDELINES IN THE LITERATURE 23
RESPONSES TO CRITICISMS 27
DESIGN GUIDELINES IN RURAL LANDSCAPES 27
CONCLUSIONS 28
REFERENCES 29

PREDICTING ALTERNATIVE VISUAL FUTURES: AN ORIENTATION TO COMPUTER SIMULATIONS 30
STEWARDSHIP OF VISUAL RESOURCES 30
THE NEW TECHNOLOGY 31
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 32
CONCLUSIONS 34

PROTECTING THE VISUAL QUALITY OF NATIONAL PARKS FROM
IMPACTS OF EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT 35
GATEWAY COMMUNITIES 35
GATEWAY COMMUNITIES AND GROWTH 35
INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT ON ADJACENT LAND THREATENS

THE VISUAL QUALITY OF NATIONAL PARKS 36
EXTERNAL THREATS ARE A SYSTEMWIDE PROBLEM 37
PROTECTING THE VISUAL QUALITY OF NATIONAL PARKS FROM

IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT IN GROWING GATEWAY COMMUNITIES 38
HELP ESTABLISH INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND COMMUNITY
COOPERATION IN GATEWAY COMMUNITIES 40

RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 43
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PARK MANAGERS 45
CONCLUSIONS 47
REFERENCES 48

SECTION D: CASE STUDIES

PARK DEVELOPMENT: THE SEARCH FOR VISUAL QUALITY AND
ECOLOGICAL SYMBIOSIS, EBEY'S LANDING AND FORT CLATSOP 51
VISUAL COMPATIBILITY 51 .
VISUAL COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES 52
EBEY'S LANDING VISUAL COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINE 52
FORT CLATSOP VISUAL COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINE 54
OPERATIONS EVALUATIONS 55

VISUAL QUALITY PROGRAM COMPONENT STANDARDS 56
DRAFT VISUAL QUALITY PROGRAM COMPONENT STANDARDS 56
REFERENCES 57

SANDY HOOK, GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 58
BACKGROUND 58
DEVELOPING THE GUIDELINES 58

THE ROLE OF DESIGN GUIDELINES IN MAINTAINING VISUAL QUALITY
ARCHITECTURAL AND ROAD CHARACTER GUIDELINES: SEQUOIA AND
KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS 61

PLANNING FOR CHANGE 61

ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER GUIDELINES GOALS 62

OBJECTIVES/PURPOSE 62

METHODOLOGY/SCOPE 63

EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK: VISUAL DESIGN GUIDELINES DEVELOPMENT 66
INTRODUCTION 66
INITIAL FOCUS 66
THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 66
VERNACULAR ARCHITECTURE 67
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 68
PROPOSED SITE RESTORATION 68

SECTION ffl: SELECTED ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 73

via

CTION I:

Perspectives on Visual Quality

The Search for Harmony in Park Developments

Ervin H. Zube

Who Thinks What About the Visual Quality of the Built Environment
in National Parks?

James L. Sell & Ervin H. Zube

Red Brick and Only So Tall: Law, Aesthetics, and Design Guidelines

Carol Whittaker & Ervin H. Zube

Predicting Alternative Visual Futures: An Orientation to Computer
Simulations

Joseph Crystal

Protecting the Visual Quality of National Parks from Impacts of
External Development

Luther Propst & Mary Schmid

mge

■

mge

Ihe search for harmony in park developments

Ervin H. Zube

FROM RUSTIC DESIGN TO ... ?

In 1865 Frederick Law Olmsted reported to the
California legislature on principles that should be
followed by the commission charged with man-
agement of the Yosemite Valley and the Mari-
posa Big Tree Grove. He stated,

The main duty with which the Commis-
sioners should be charged should be
to give every advantage practicable to
the mass of the people to benefit by
that which is peculiar to this ground
and which has caused Congress to
treat it differently from other parts of
the public domain. This peculiarity
consists wholly in its natural scenery.

The first point to be kept in mind then
is the preservation and maintenance as
exactly as is possible of the natural
scenery; the restriction, that is to say,
within the narrowest limits consistent
with the necessary accommodations of
visitors, of all artificial constructions
and the prevention of all constructions
markedly inharmonious with the scen-
ery or which would unnecessarily ob-
scure, distort, or detract from the
scenery. (Olmsted 1865)

With those words Olmsted set in place criteria for
developments in national parks that have lasted
more than 125 years. His basic message was that
park resources come first and that all develop-
ments provided for visitor services, administra-
tion, and maintenance should be visually
subservient to those resources.

EARLY CONCERNS FOR HARMONY

Following the establishment of the National Park
Service in 1916, concern for the relationship of
developments with park resources was voiced fre-
quently in the directors' annual reports to the sec-
retary of interior and in other NPS documents. In
his reports for 1919 and following years, for ex-
ample, Stephen Mather described desirable rela-
tionships between buildings and landscapes with

phrases such as "a result which will be harmoni-
ous" and "one harmonious whole."

In 1918 Mather hired the first of many landscape
architects who were charged with ensuring the
harmony of all developments in the parks. De-
pending upon the physical size and geographic
location of a park, development could include
roads for access to and movement within the
park, utility systems, visitor sleeping and dining
accommodations, museums, signs, site furniture,
trails, and management and maintenance facilities.

The railroad companies that provided most of the
early accommodations in national parks made a
major contribution to the design of buildings that
were perceived to be in harmony with park re-
sources. Inspiration for the first hotels frequently
came from mountain resort hotels in Norway and
Switzerland with American adaptations and de-
tails. These hotels were constructed of local mate-
rials and were designed in harmony with the
surrounding landscape. Among the earliest were
Old Faithful Inn in 1903 and New Canyon Inn in
1910 built by the Northern Pacific Railroad in Yel-
lowstone National Park. The Great Northern Rail-
road built Glacier Park and Many Glacier hotels
in 1913 and 1915 respectively, as well as a num-
ber of other visitor facilities in Glacier National
Park. The Atcheson, Topeka, and Santa Fe Rail-
road built the El Tovar Hotel at the Grand Can-
yon in 1905 while the canyon was still
administered by the U.S. Forest Service. More ho-
tels and many other structures were built in other
parks using a rustic design theme during the first
half of the twentieth century.

The elements of rustic design were described as
early as 1935 by Albert Good, in Park and Recrea-
tion Structures, which was published in an ex-
panded version in 1938 and reissued in 1990. In
discussing rustic design, Good suggested that
buildings should be subordinated to landscape
by locating them "behind existing plant material
or in some secluded spot . . . partly screened by
some other natural feature." He suggested several
other design attributes that would contribute to
harmonizing buildings with park resources, attrib-
utes that would help buildings blend in with the

landscape, including appropriate colors and roof
textures, foundation plantings, rough rock foot-
ings, and battered walls. In the introduction to
the 1990 reprint, historian Laura Soulliere Harri-
son comments, "The available materials used in
building these structures gave them a natural
camouflage in the landscape." Some of these
same design attributes now figure prominently in
community and historic district design guidelines.

Tweed and Harrison note that "as practiced by
the National Park Service between 1916 and
1942, 'rustic architecture' most certainly was not a
style, but rather a concept or design ethic which
encompassed many, styles." Inspiration for the de-
sign of park structures came from indigenous ru-
ral structures as well as from the mountain resort
hotels of Europe. Tweed and Harrison comment
that Stephen Mather was responsible for suggest-
ing the idea of patterning some of the rustic
buildings after simple, utilitarian, trapper-style
cabins. They also concluded that, "For the first
time the government was attempting to use archi-
tecture as a tool toward creating a distinctive
park image."

Contemporary interpretations of that era suggest
that the government did succeed in creating a
park image. Good's publication served as a de-
sign manual for projects undertaken by the sev-
eral depression era conservation programs,
including the Public Works Administration,
Works Progress Administration, and Civilian Con-
servation Corps (Wirth 1980). Rustic design facili-
ties appeared in national, state, county, and
metropolitan parks (Cutler 1985), many of which
are still in use and are being nominated for list-
ing on the National Register of Historic Places.

Rustic design, with varying regional expressions,
lasted until World War II. There were, however,
some earlier exceptions to this design theme.
One such departure was the 1940 administration
museum building at Ocmulgee National Monu-
ment in Macon, Georgia. It was designed in the
"Art Moderne" style popularized at the 1936 New
York World's Fair.

CHANGING DIRECTIONS
AFTER WORLD WAR II

Following World War II, major changes occurred
in the design of park structures and in public per-
ceptions of their harmonious relationships with

park resources. A number of events contributed
to these changes. Not least among them was the
hiring of many bright young designers who knew
little or nothing about the rustic design tradition.
These were architects and landscape architects
who had been trained in the modern school of
design. This school, which developed in Europe
during the 1930s, rapidly took a firm hold on
American design education following the war.
Mission 66 began in 1956. It generated so much
work that the design review procedures that had
prevailed before the war and that might have
served to convey former design traditions to the
new designers were considerably relaxed. The
generation of designs, production of working
drawings, and construction of facilities were all
done at an accelerated pace (Carnes 1984).

A significant new type of facility, the visitor cen-
ter, was associated with Mission 66. Its adoption
and rapid acceptance presented the young de-
signers with a new challenge and an opportunity
to experiment. In addition, the reorganization of
planning and design services from the decentral-
ized regional offices to new design and planning
offices in San Francisco and Philadelphia created
groups of these bright young designers who
were then able to collectively exert greater influ-
ence on design decisions.

The design changes initiated by this wave of new
talent did not always maintain the kind of harmo-
nious relationships that had existed before World
War II. Opposition to the new designs was
voiced most strongly in articles and letters to the
editor of National Parks magazine. While a few
letters offered support for modern or contempo-
rary design, Olmsted's words of 1865 appeared in
support of arguments against many of the new
designs - arguments decrying loss of harmony in
the parks. One of the more telling statements
was the comment that the new structures were of
a "freak styles" that "seem(s) to steal the show"
and ..." dominate the landscape" (Butcher
1952).

The architectural press was also critical. An article
in the January 1957 issue of Architectural Record
accused the National Park Service of being timid
and not getting great architecture for the great
landscapes of the national parks. By 1970 atti-
tudes changed and the American Institute of Ar-
chitects commended the National Park Service for
its attempts at regional character in the design of
facilities and for continuing efforts to provide

design excellence in all its endeavors. The next
year, the American Institute of Architects Journal
published an article summarizing the accomplish-
ments of Mission 66 and titled it, "Our Park Serv-
ice Serves Architecture Well" (Koehler 1971). In
the eyes of at least one influential group of critics
the National Park Service, after a hiatus of nearly
two decades, was once again producing region-
ally harmonious buildings.

The 12-Point Plan for the National Park Service,
published in 1986, continued the call for harmoni-
ous designs and included several objectives re-
lated to the planning and design of appropriate
park facilities - objectives that also relate directly
to the visual quality of developed areas in parks.
These include:

■ provide visitor and management facilities that
are harmonious and visually pleasing in their
simplicity, and that, wherever possible, pro-
vide interpretation/information opportunities

■ evaluate the feasibility for adaptive use of his-
toric and nonhistone structures before new
construction

The concern with harmonious relationships was
reiterated in the 1988 NPS Management Policies,
which state

. . . visitor and management facilities
provided by the Park Service and its
concessionaires will be harmonious
with park resources . . . Facilities will
be integrated into the park landscape
and environs so as to cause minimum
impact. Development will not compete
with or dominate park features.

This concern was reinforced by then Director Ri-
denour's June 27, 1990, memorandum on visual
quality of the parks' built environments. In this
memorandum, which was addressed to the direc-
torate, field directorate, and park superinten-
dents, he stated

Figures 1-2: Rustic
design; Thunderbird
Lodge, Canyon de
Chelly National
Monument and East
Glacier Railroad
Station at Glacier
National Park, both
reflecting regional
materials and forms.
(Photographs by
EH. Zube)

Figures 3A-.
Contrasting design
approaches: Stephen
Mather Training
Center at Grand
Canyon National
Park, a Post-World
War II design that
could be found
anywhere in the
United States, and
Horseshoe Curve
National Historical
Landmark, a new
visitor center with
siting and materials
that are sympathetic
with traditional forms
and the existing
landscape.
Construction
completed April 1992.
(Photographs April
1992, by A. Thornton,
National Park Service,
Denver Service Center)

The design and maintenance of park
facilities are critical to ensuring that
our visitors have the most rewarding
experience. A positive park experience
often begins with the visual quality of
the park's built environment.

DEFINING HARMONIOUS RELATIONSHIPS

Albert Good implicitly defined harmonious rela-
tionships, in words similar to those used in the
12-Point Plan, as the subordination of a structure
to environment and having buildings blend in
with the landscape. He was writing in 1938 about
buildings that were constructed of natural materi-
als in natural landscape parks. This concept of
harmonious design was based on the use of local
materials and a scale and form that appeared fit-

ting to the existing landscape context. The struc-
tures illustrated and detailed in his book were
aptly described as rustic architecture. Oversized
boulders and logs were considered appropriate
for rugged mountain landscapes - depending on
whether they were barren or forest covered.
Smaller scale materials were appropriate in less
rugged topography.

In a contemporary context, Peter Blake (1990) de-
scribes the harmonious introduction of new build-
ings into existing developed areas as an
"architecture of courtesy." He identifies three ele-
ments that will presumably produce harmonious
relationships without copying existing historic
buildings and do not violate the past, the texture,
or the scale of the context in which the addition
is built.

The design of new structures should be contem-
porary but should reflect the past without at-
tempting to re-create or dominate it.

The challenge for the National Park Service today
is more demanding than at the time Good was
writing. Harmony must be sought in not only
natural areas and historic settings but also in pre-
historic sites and recreational and cultural land-
scapes. Further complicating the task are the
diverse locations of these parks in urban, subur-
ban, rural, and remote settings. Harmony must
now be defined in terms of both natural and
built environments. Furthermore, in most parks,
the concept of harmony must encompass ecologi-
cal as well as aesthetic considerations. Harmoni-
ous relationships of facilities with park
landscapes should now include, in addition to
concerns about form, color, and materials, con-
cerns about issues such as landscape degrada-
tion, preservation of natural processes, and
protection of biological diversity.

WHY IS VISUAL QUALITY IMPORTANT?

National parks, monuments, recreation areas, and
all other NPS units collectively represent the natu-
ral, historic, and cultural heritage of the country.
These resources have been entrusted to the care
of the National Park Service because they consti-
tute the national heritage to be preserved for fu-
ture generations. Ever increasing levels of
visitation and continuous public support for ex-
pansion of the system provide evidence of their
importance to the American public. They are
sources of inspiration, enjoyment, recreational op-
portunities, and information about natural and
cultural history and the beauty of nature.

Most visitors expect to have quality experiences
in both natural and developed landscapes. Visi-
tors' experiences are influenced by their previous
national park visits and expectations for present
and future park visits. Park experiences involve
all of the senses - seeing, hearing, touching,
smelling, and even tasting. Vision is, however,
the dominant sense for the majority of park visi-
tors.

What visitors see can influence how they feel
about and behave in the park. For example, vol-
unteer paths proliferate and landscape degrada-
tion occurs when steps are not taken to restore
such areas. Once one volunteer path is estab-

lished, others often appear in rapid succession.
Visitors may read the landscape as one in which
it is permissible to wander at will, on or off estab-
lished pathways.

The visual quality of both natural and developed
areas in parks is an important factor in providing
for quality experiences. This becomes even more
salient when considered in reference to recog-
nized patterns of use of many park visitors, pat-
terns which involve spending the majority of
their time in the developed areas of parks.

RESEARCH ON DEVELOPED AREA
VISUAL QUALITY

Visual quality of landscapes has been the focus
of an impressive body of research for nearly
three decades (Zube, Sell, and Taylor 1982; Smar-
don, Palmer, and Fellman 1986). Much of it has
been undertaken in response to the requirements
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the management and planning activities of
the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Man-
agement. The legislative requirements for public
participation and the associated desire to under-
stand public perceptions of visual quality aided
this natural resource-oriented research initiative.

During the past decade, there has been increased
attention to rural landscapes (Belknap 1987).
However, considerably less research has been
done on the visual quality of built or developed
landscapes or on the harmonious relationships
between new and old structures or between new
structures and natural or cultural landscapes.

Harmony, as a descriptor of visual relationships,
is not a prominent term in visual quality research
literature. Nevertheless, harmony of human inter-
ventions in forests and rangelands has been an
implicit objective of Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management visual resource management
programs. Whether the problem has been one of
planning a timber harvest, range rehabilitation
project, or a new ski area, the common goal has
been to ensure harmony with the existing natural
landscape.

There are a number of terms used to describe the
relationships of new structures with existing
buildings and landscapes. Many are similar to, if
not synonymous with, harmonious. These in-
clude appropriateness, compatibility, congruence,

context, fittingness, and order. The issues that
have been addressed in this research include
compatibility among different land use activities,
fitting structures into historic districts, relation-
ships between different architectural styles (for
example, between modern and post-modern),
and appropriateness of residential structures in
shoreline and forested landscapes.

The compatibility of different land uses or the vis-
ual congruence of adjacent land uses is a signifi-
cant predictor of the scenic values of landscapes
that consist of both developed and natural areas
(Hendrix and Fabos 1975). Compatible land uses
tend to be those that are similar in both kind and
intensity of use. For example, farm and forest are
likely to be perceived as more compatible with
each other than either farm or forest with subdivi-
sions or industrial areas.

Designers and nondesigners are in frequent dis-
agreement about the perceived meanings of
buildings and the appropriateness of new build-
ings inserted among existing older structures
(Groat 1984). Some research findings suggest that
nondesigners are more concerned than designers
that buildings appear appropriate to building
type and use. This research suggests, for exam-

ple, that schools, churches, banks, visitor centers,
and administration buildings ought to reflect their
respective uses in the images they project. Build-
ings are perceived as more in context and more
harmonious when the design transition from old
to new buildings is evolutionary rather than revo-
lutionary. Facade treatment and details are impor-
tant elements in this transition and are significant
for communicating to nondesigners a sense of ap-
propriateness and harmony.

A small body of research has explored the mean-
ings people associate with buildings and land-
scapes and also the effects that different
meanings can have on perceptions of building ap-
propriateness (Groat 1982) and scenic quality
(Nasar and Julian 1985). For example, the per-
ceived scenic quality of a body of water can be
lower when it is called a reservoir than when it is
called a lake, even though it is the same body of
water. The same is true of a forest landscape
when it is called a tree farm rather than a forest
(Hodgson and Thayer 1980). A vacation lodge
may also be perceived as more appropriate for a
coastal landscape than a lumber mill, suggesting
that the appropriateness of a building or land use
activity relates in part to its landscape context
(Wohlwill 1978). Other research has shown that

Figure 5. Andersonville National Historical Park Visitor Center/Museum: The form and materials derive from the simple brick
buildings, from the granite, bronze, and marble monuments in the park, and from the thematic elements common to
prisoner-of-war stories. (Illustration by Jeffrey Joyce)

there are important elements of buildings that
contribute to the perception of appropriateness
in specific landscapes or that link them visually
to traditional local (vernacular) buildings (Low
and Ryan 1985). Obtrusiveness, as in bright col-
ors or building materials of an industrial rather
than natural nature (e.g. aluminum versus wood)
can reduce visual quality and the perceived ap-
propriateness of buildings in natural landscapes
(Vining, Daniel, and Schroeder 1984).

The history of growth and expansion of the park
system (in both the range of resources now pro-
tected in parks and the diverse environmental
contexts within which parks exist) dramatically il-
lustrates the challenges in designing harmonious
park facilities. The concept of harmony must link
visual quality of developed areas with the biologi-
cal and physical well-being of the park land-
scapes. In other words, harmony must link
ecological health with visual satisfaction.

LOOKING BACKWARD AND FORWARD

REFERENCES

The brief historical review of facilities design pre-
sented here indicates a consistent concern with
harmonious relationships between visitor service,
administrative, and maintenance developments
with park resources. There have, however, been
lapses in the requisite monitoring of facility de-
signs that allowed questionable projects to be
built - lapses associated with heavy workloads
and deadline pressures.

Good's observations on attributes of design that
facilitate harmonious relationships bear striking
similarity to many of the attributes found in his-
toric district and new community design guide-
lines. The findings from the research in
environmental perception also partially explain
the success of the rustic design tradition and its
regional expressions. They indicate that develop-
ments in natural areas are more likely to be per-
ceived as harmonious when the visible
construction materials relate to the surrounding
landscape. They indicate that replication of mean-
ingful dominant building elements and forms de-
rived from traditional local (vernacular) structures
can enhance the perception of appropriateness
or harmony, and that structures in developed ar-
eas are more likely to be perceived as harmoni-
ous when colors are not in sharp contrast with
natural landscape colors. There should be a conti-
nuity of form, materials, colors, and details
among the structures within the area.

Research on visual quality also suggests that
names or labels can impute meanings to struc-
tures and developed areas and can affect ob-
servers' perceptions of the visual quality and the
appropriateness of the facility or area. Visual har-
mony or appropriateness is relative to the per-
ceived meaning of the structure or development
and the landscape context in which it exists. La-
bels can deceive or inform the visitor.

Belknap, R.

1987 Guidelines for improvement in the rural
landscape. In: Aesthetics of the Rural
Renaissance: Proceedings of the 1987
Conference. Polytechnic State Univer-
sity. San Luis Obispo, CA.

Blake, P.

1980 The architecture of courtesy, In:

National Trust for Historic Preservation,
Old and New Architecture Design
Relationship. The Preservation Press.
Washington, DC.

Butcher, D.

1952 For a return to harmony in park archi-
tecture. National Park Magazine.
26(11):150-157.

Carnes, W.

1984 Interview with E.H. Zube, January 10.
Sun City, Arizona.

Cutler, P.

1985 The Public Landscape of the New Deal.
New Haven, Yale University Press.

Groat, L.

1984 Public opinions of contextual fit.
Architecture. 59:72-76.

1982 Meaning in post-modern architecture:
an examination using the multi-sorting
task, fournal of Environmental
Psychology 2(l):3-22.

Hendrix, W. and J. G. Fabos

1975 Visual land use compatibility as a signifi-
cant contributor to visual resource qual-
ity. International Journal of
Environmental Quality 8(l):l-8.

Hodgson, R.W. and R.L. Thayer, Jr.

1980 Implied human influence reduces sce-
nic beauty. Landscape Planning
7(2):171-179.

Koehler, R.E.

1971 Our park service serves architecture
well. A1A Journal. Jan.:18-25.

Low, S.M. and W.P. Ryan

1985 Knowing without looking: a methodol-
ogy for the integration of architectural
and local perceptions in Olney,
Pennsylvania. Journal of Architectural
and Planning Research 2(l):3-22.

Nasar, J.L. and D. Julian

1985 Effects of labeled meaning on the affec-
tive quality of housing scenes. Journal
of Environmental Psychology 5(4):335-
344.

National Park Service

1992 National Parks for the 21st Century -
The Vail Agenda. Report and Recom-
mendations to the Director of the
National Park Service, from the Steering
Committee of the 75th Anniversary
Symposium. Washington DC.

1988 Management Policies. Washington, DC.

1986 12-Point Plan; the Challenge the
Actions. Washington, DC.

1938 Park and Recreation Structures. U.S.
Government Printing Office. Reprinted
with an introduction by L.S. Harrison.
1990. Boulder, CO, Gray Books.

Olmsted, F.L.

1865 The Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa
Big Tree Grove. Reprinted in Landscape
Architecture, 1952, 43(l):13-25.

Smardon, R.C., J.F. Palmer, and J. P. Felleman
1986 Foundations for Visual Project Analysis.
John Wiley & Sons. New York.

Tweed, W. and L.S. Harrison
(forthcoming)

Rustic Architecture and the Parks: The
History of a Design Ethic. University of
Nebraska Press. Lincoln.

Vining, J., T.C. Daniel, and H.W. Schroeder

1984 Predicting scenic values in forested resi-
dential landscapes. Journal of Leisure
Research 16(2):124-135.

Wirth, C.L.

1980 Parks, Politics, and the People.

University of Oklahoma Press. Norman.

Wohlwill, J.F.

1978 What belongs where: research on fit-

tingness of man-made structures in natu-
ral settings. Landscape Research
3(3):3-4,23.

Zube, E.H., J.L. Sell, andJ.G. Taylor.

1982 Landscape perception: research, applica-
tion, and theory. Landscape Planning.
9:75-96.

IIMho thinks what about the visual quaijty of
the built environment in national parks?

James L. Sell & Ervin H. Zube

I'm not an architect but I know what
looks good in a park setting.

1989 NPS survey respondent

SO WHO CARES?

Who cares about the buildings in Yosemite? Do
most people go beyond the visitor center? Don't
most people go there to look at the falls, or Half
Dome, or head off into the backcountry - so why
worry about the staging areas where they camp,
buy their film, or look at interpretive exhibits?

Discussions with park personnel around the
country indicate that they care. There is a grow-
ing awareness among NPS personnel of the im-
portance of the built environment - that visitor
experience can be as affected by visions of inhar-
monious site development, structures, and mainte-
nance as by the environmental resource the park
was created to protect. Professionals at the NPS
Denver Service Center were among the first to
recognize the problem. They felt that it was im-
portant to systematically assess the degree to
which this was viewed as an important issue and
to get park professionals' views on what could
be done.

THE SURVEY

In spring 1989 a mail survey was sent to NPS ad-
ministrators, managers, and staff to ask how they
felt about the built environment in the national
park system. Questions were posed about the sig-
nificance of harmonious designs, recommended
requirements for design themes and guidelines,
and the importance of visual quality in the parks.
Specific issues addressed included identification
of important elements of harmonious designs, de-
sign themes, and design guidelines, why design
themes and visual quality are important, the im-
portance of built elements that contribute to vis-
ual quality, attitudes about who should be
responsible for ensuring visual quality in parks,

and the identification of parks that represent the
highest and the lowest visual qualities in the sys-
tem.

Questionnaires were mailed to

superintendents and selected staff from a
representative sample of 169 parks

a sample population of designers and
planners at the Denver Service and Harpers
Ferry centers

administrators and selected staff in the
regional and Washington D.C. offices

A total of 1,179 questionnaires were distributed,
1,031 to parks and 148 to service centers, re-
gional offices, and the Washington Office. A total
of 755 questionnaires were returned, yielding an
overall response rate of 64%. The response rate
for the centers and the regional and Washington
offices was 90% and for the parks it was 60%. All
told, 70% of the park superintendents responded
and 96% of the parks in the sample returned one
or more questionnaires. The directors, associate
directors, and center managers were the group
most highly represented. The people whose pro-
fessional roles are most directly involved in plan-
ning and designing the built environment
(architecture, engineering, landscape architecture,
and planning) sent in nearly half of the re-
sponses. The next highest response rate came
from maintenance personnel and facilities manag-
ers. The positive response to the survey is a
strong indication of the extent to which park per-
sonnel have seen and thought about this problem.

Survey Findings

The responses to many questions posed in the
survey indicate a very high level of agreement
among respondents about the importance of the
visual quality of built environments in parks. For
ease of communication, collective responses from
park personnel are referred to in the following

text as park unit responses and those from re-
gional offices', centers, and Washington are re-
ferred to as regional/center responses.

Importance of Visual Quality

How important is the visual quality of developed
areas in parks? Only 8 of the 614 (1.3%) park unit
respondents thought it was not important. The
mean value for all respondents (a total of 749),
using a five-point scale (1 = not important at all
to 5 = extremely important) was 4.46. The impor-
tance of visual quality to the visitor's experience
was rated somewhat lower on the same five-
point scale at 4.06. Reasons given for why devel-
oped area visual quality is important are listed in
rank order in table 1. The highest rated reasons
are visitor expectations, NPS responsibility for set-
ting high standards, and the need for consistently
high visual quality standards in all parts of parks
that are accessible to the public.

TABLE 1: REASONS WHY DEVELOPED AREA
VISUAL QUALITY IS IMPORTANT

Mean Value*

Visitors expect park environments, both
natural and cultural, to consistently be of
high quality

4.21

The National Park Service should set the
standard for the nation for visual quality in
both natural and developed areas

4.16

All areas and elements that are accessible
to the public should be of equally high
quality

4.13

Visual quality enhances educational and
interpretive programs

4.07

Enhance public support for the NPS

3.94

Most visitors accept what they see in parks
as being high quality, thus the NPS has the
responsibility to see that it is so

3.73

Most visitors spend most of their time in
developed areas

3.60

' Based on a 5 point scale: 1 = lowest, 2 - highest

Many respondents added written comments to
further explain their answers to the fixed re-
sponse questions. For example, several respon-
dents seemed rather surprised that the question
of visual quality ever came up, and one noted
that, "This seems to be a kind of motherhood
and apple pie kind of question. Who could think
visual quality was unimportant?"

Most comments, however, underlined the need
for stronger consideration of the visual environ-
ment, as in this example:

We are in the business of protecting
scenic visual quality. Our structures
should fully complement our re-
sources in quality.

There is a strong sense of professional mission
that was expressed in such phrases as "sense of
pride," "high standards," "stewardship," "respect
for integrity of cultural resources," or "quality ap-
propriate to the significance of a park area." That
attitude was most certainly apparent in the follow-
ing-

We have one of the seven wonders of
the world in our backyard. Our devel-
oped areas should have some class!

I plan - design interpretive media for
the parks. Why should 1 maintain high
standards for exhibits that will go into
a substandard developed area? That's
why when planning my wayside exhib-
its I offer lots of advice about landscap-
ing, signs, obtrusive elements, colors
of structures nearby, walking surface,
trash cans, vista clearing, etc.

While one respondent said that the notion that
the National Park Service should "set the stand-
ard for the nation" was "pompous," many others
were aware of the vital role of park visual quality
in enhancing visitor experience and demonstrat-
ing the NPS commitment to stewardship princi-
ples:

Developed areas should not distract
visitors from enjoying park resources.

People treat areas of high quality with
more respect and take better care of
them.

The care given to visual quality, espe-
cially in developed areas, demon-
strates to the public the commitment
that management and park employees
have to the stewardship of the park.

The perceived importance of elements that con-
tribute to visual quality is presented in table 2.
One element stands out among all of those listed
as being singularly important - the overall quality
of maintenance. Sign design, colors, consistency
in interpretive exhibits, and appropriate plantings
are also seen as very important. Those elements
seen as least important are repetitive building
forms, uniform pavement surfaces, and uniform
pavement edges. The very low rating of uniform
pavement edges is also interesting in light of the
observational evidence in many parks that un-
even and raveled edges are obvious indicators of
inadequate maintenance and invitations for peo-
ple on foot and in vehicles to stray from the in-
tended travel way and expand volunteer paths,
drives, and parking areas.

TABLE 2: IMPORTANCE OF BUILT ELEMENTS IN
MAINTAINING VISUAL QUALITY

Element

Mean
Value*

Overall maintenance quality

4.58

Consistency in sign designs

4.27

Compatible colors

4.11

Consistency in interpretive exhibits

4.11

Appropriate landscape plantings

4.06

Continuity of building materials

3-94

Similar trailhead designs

3.72

Repetitive building forms

3.51

Uniform pavement surfaces

3.50

Uniform pavement edges

3.28

• Based on 5 point scale: 1 = lowest, 5 = highest

Each respondent was asked to identify the two
parks "in the entire national park system . . . that
have the highest developed area visual quality"
and also two parks that have the lowest devel-
oped area visual quality.

Park/unit responses listed 187 different parks in
the highest visual quality category and 161 in the
lowest category. Regional/center responses listed
51 parks in the highest category and 72 in the
lowest. Table 3 lists those parks perceived by at
least 20 of the respondents to have the highest
and the lowest developed area visual quality.
There are significant similarities among most
units in both sets of parks. Developed areas in
most of the units in the good parks list tend to
have buildings constructed of local or natural ma-
terials, forms that are reminiscent of traditional lo-
cal structures, and consistency of design
expression throughout the developed areas. In
contrast, those units identified as representing
low developed area visual quality can be gener-
ally characterized as displaying a lack of continu-
ity in design forms and building materials, and
frequently had areas developed over long time
periods when architectural styles varied and
didn't take inspiration from local, traditional
forms.

TABLE 3: PARKS WITH HIGHEST AND LOWEST
DEVELOPED AREA VISUAL QUALITY

(N = 386)

Highest Visual Quality

Lowest Visual Quality

Blue Ridge Parkway

Grand Canyon

124

Glacier

Yellowstone

Great Smoky
Mountains

Yosemite

Shenandoah

Gateway

Yellowstone

Gettysburg

Independence

Mesa Verde

Pecos

The appearance of Yellowstone National Park in
both lists shows graphically the disparity of devel-
oped areas within some parks and the varying de-
grees of visual coherence among and within
those units. For example, the development at
Mammoth Hot Springs, while diverse in style, has
a fairly consistent scale and coherent groupings
of buildings of similar style in relatively discreet
areas. In contrast, the development around Old
Faithful Lodge, while having some degree of uni-
formity of materials, has buildings of markedly
different styles, scales, and facades, and notable
contrasts in the amount of detailing on the build-
ings. One NPS critic stated that a visitor to Yel-
lowstone had commented that it was too bad
about what a developer had done to Grant Vil-
lage. It wasn't a developer, it was the National
Park Service and the concessioner.

Another visitor summed up a general impression
of Yellowstone by saying, "It's a shopping mall!"

Harmonious Relationships

TABLE 4: IMPORTANCE OF NEW BUILDING

ELEMENTS FOR CREATING HARMONIOUS

RELATIONSHIPS WITH SURROUNDING

NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS

Elements

Mean
Value*

Colors that blend with the surroundings

4.35

Buildings that reflect traditional forms and
styles

4.10

Natural materials

4.05

Rustic designs

3.29

Building forms that express functions they
house

3.27

Contemporary or modern designs

2.55

* Based on a 5 point scale: 1 = lowest, 5 = highest

Concern about the harmonious blending of park
structures with park resources - both natural and
cultural - has figured prominently in discussions
and writings about park planning and design
since the establishment of the National Park Serv-
ice and is reiterated as an element of NPS policy
in the 1988 Management Policies manual. When
asked how important this policy was, the re-
sponse was overwhelming - the vast majority felt
built environment harmony was very or ex-
tremely important. They were concerned about
harmony with the surrounding park resources
and within the built environment itself.

Table 4 presents the combined park unit and re-
gional/center responses to inquiries about which
elements of new construction are important in
creating harmonious relationships with existing
natural environments. The three highest rated ele-
ments indicate strong support for traditional defi-
nitions of harmonious designs, colors that blend
with the surroundings, traditional building forms,
and natural materials. Color, traditional building
forms, and natural materials have also been iden-
tified as important elements of buildings that are
compatible with their surroundings.

Table 5 indicates which elements are thought to
contribute most to harmonious relationships with
existing buildings. As is evident from the mean

TABLE 5: IMPORTANCE OF NEW BWLDLNG

ELEMENTS FOR CREATING HARMONIOUS

RELATIONSHIPS WITH EXISTING BUILDINGS

Elements

Mean
Value*

Continuity of landscape treatment

4.12

*
Maintaining consistent colors

4.04

Building shape and mass that relates to
existing structures

4.00

Similar construction materials

3.99

Consistent design of signs, benches,
lighting, and other sit furniture

3.95

Similar roof shapes

3.89

Similar facade treatments, size and spacing
of windows, proportions of window to wall

3.78

Repeated building detail such as cornice
and window details

3.53

Based on a 5 point scale: 1 = lowest, 5 = highest

Figures 1-3: Lack of
continuity in design
form or materials
among the
Yellowstone National
Park Hotels -
Mammoth Hotel, (c.
1883), top; Lake Hotel,
(c. 1890), middle;
and Old Faithful Inn,
(c. 1903), bottom. The
neo-classical image of
Lake Hotel is a result
of remodeling in
1904-05.
(Photographs by
National Park Service)

■-■-■:■

values for each element in the table, all were
thought to be important to some degree. The two
lowest ranked elements suggest a difference be-
tween park personnel and the public. Facade
treatment and details are among the most impor-
tant in lay persons' perceptions of the fittingness
of new buildings with old.

The open-ended comments of park service per-
sonnel revealed a great deal about the kinds of is-
sues that were appearing in the field. Visual
quality includes such factors as tastefulness, com-
patibility with historic themes and the surround-
ing natural environment, local values,
conservation, and several more design-specific
ideals. Table 4 has already documented the im-
portance of designs, colors, and materials that
harmonize with the natural environment. One
person also commented that the "type of design
(modern or rustic) is not as important as the taste-
fulness of any style." Several people pointed out
the importance of designs appropriate to historic
styles, especially in historic theme parks:

In historical areas, historical values
must take precedence over 'natural.'

Except in very special cases, it is critical not to
duplicate historic structures or styles. This was an
issue addressed by several respondents:

Except for historic existing structures,
new structures should not possibly be
confused with historic structures.

Another school of design says build
the best for the period, but be compat-
ible with the past - not just replicate.

One other person felt that the local history of the
region is also important for consideration, stating

Buildings put into older established
areas should have a design consistent
with historic design elements repre-
sentative of that area.

Several respondents also stressed the need for de-
sign in harmony with local character, observing
that

Design elements for new buildings
should reflect architectural and
aesthetic values of the specific park or
locale rather than reflect 'traditional'

Park Service values which are more
broadly based.

Existing buildings, if used for compari-
son, should be appropriate and repre-
sentative of the park or region.

New construction can be bold or inno-
vative, but it should clearly relate to
the desired theme and/or the park and
region.

Above all, there is an awareness that each situ-
ation has its own opportunities and limitations,
and design should reflect the local situation:

Frequently in natural parks, particu-
larly new ones but not in historic
areas, 'harmonious relationships' are
relative. I believe a contemporary or
modem design . . . (is) as appropriate
and effective as those that 'reflect tradi-
tional (Park Service) values'.

The solution is completely dependent
on the circumstance, without local
style, tradition can be 'invented' and a
contemporary solution might be se-
lected with or without local materials.

In one other case, the lack of attention to the ex-
isting environmental conditions and failure to use
regionally appropriate designs created a situation
that will cost a great deal to correct:

The architectural motif for our park is
contemporary or modem. It has failed
because of poor design. Twelve years
after construction, we are now having
to put hundreds of thousands of dol-
lars into rehabilitation. The local cul-
ture knew how to design for this
climate - the NPS designer failed.

Additionally, as another person pointed out, vis-
ual harmony might also be supplemented with
conservation themes:

In addition to harmony - minimizing
above ground area should be stressed
along with energy conservation.

Other people commented on the significance of
properly siting buildings, advance planning for
building compatibility, design themes, design for
handicapped accessibility, and the need to con-
trol parking. As noted by one park respondent,

The amount of parking provided at
sites and structures is too often over-
done. It is self defeating. Separation
from the site best preserves the values
of the site.

It is also important to look beyond visual com-
patibility, especially regarding function and main-
tenance:

No matter what the building, it should
not be difficult to maintain. I've seen
wonderful new buildings designed
and built. But due to lack of funds, the
parks are unable to maintain them.

Consistent use of design in signs, etc,
is easier for the visiting public. They
will remember the design of the bath-
room facilities and (that) will make lo-
cating these structures easy for them
during their stay.

Signs need to be consistent, but they
need to do a better job of directing
and notifying the public of facilities.

Design Themes

All units in the national park system were created
because some feature or quality was thought to
be of national importance. All parks - from Mesa
Verde to Manassas to Mount Rainier - conjure up
specific images in our minds. These images
ought to be easily tied into design themes to en-
hance the quality that justified the park in the
first place. It is NPS policy for each park to have
a design theme. Yet in 1989 only 17% of the
parks in our sample have any formal, written
themes (55% had none, another 28% of the re-
spondents didn't know if they had them or not).

While most parks don't have design themes,
most park personnel think they should have
them. Overall, there was very strong support indi-
cated for the design theme concept and its contri-
bution to the visual quality of developed areas.
Eighty percent of all respondents to this question
indicated that a theme was very or extremely im-
portant for developed area visual quality; 18%
viewed it as important; and only 2% considered it
not very or not at all important. On the five-point
rating scale used for this question, the mean
value for all respondents was 4.17, which is quite
high.

Park unit and regional/center respondents do
think design themes are important. There are two
primary reasons: themes can provide a sense of
unity within and among developed areas in
parks, and they can ensure the continuity of the
park image over time. Comments about the im-
portance of design themes included the aware-
ness of the role of themes in interpretation and
the total visitor experience.

The design theme creates the environ-
ment that is the first step in park inter-
pretation.

In our park, the structures are not the
greatest resource. A well-designed de-
velopment would enhance, not de-
tract, from the visitor experience.

Perhaps most important of all, a design theme
has to relate to the purpose of the park - why it
is there. One respondent commented:

This is dependent upon the park, the
primary purpose of the area . . . This
deserves discussion and review. We've
done a number of parks a real disserv-
ice by structures that are engineeringly
sound but excessive or inappropriate
to the site or the park as a whole.

As indicated previously, there were very few re-
spondents who felt that design themes were un-
important. The responses indicate that there was
considerable variability on this issue, beyond the
approximately 20% that felt the public wouldn't
notice the difference or that the park would have
difficulty implementing a design theme. Several
people commented that their particular parks had
too much variety to be covered by one theme, al-
though they voiced no objections to developing
a set of themes. Others thought the built environ-
ment in their parks was too insignificant to rate
consideration. There was also one person who
stated, "The superintendent is going to do what
he likes no matter what a design theme says."

Also important were park unit respondents' atti-
tudes about the appropriate basis for design
themes in their parks. Of particular interest is the
consistency of these responses with those that ad-
dressed the issue of harmonious structures and
that placed emphasis on natural landscapes and
traditional/local buildings. The responses stress
the appropriateness with the natural landscape
(36.7%), historical regional buildings (18.0%),

•«jjii» .•-<Jfifc«^

DEVILS COURTHOUSE
TUNNEL

Figures 9-12: Continuity of forms and materials from historic Rustic Cabin (top) and Mabry Mill {middle left), to
contemporary Devil's Courthouse Tunnel Portal (middle right) and the Peaks of Otter Gasoline Station (bottom), along the
Blue Ridge Parkway. Old and new buildings express traditional Appalachian culture. (Photographs by National Park Service)

traditional local building styles, historic events or
people (13-4%), or the surrounding cultural land-
scape (11.4%). Comments also included aware-
ness of the need for flexibility - that there are
several themes that would fit an individual park,
and planning should avoid rigid prescriptions.

using operations evaluations and the superinten-
dent's annual review as basic tools, and provid-
ing staff training programs. Least important,
although still slightly higher than average, is the
response of visitors based on their experiences in
the developed areas of parks.

Design Guidelines

The next logical step after deciding on design
themes is to develop design guidelines to ensure
that those themes are realized in the developed
areas of the parks. A design guideline provides in-
structions about the use of specific details to en-
hance the overall theme or to blend
harmoniously with park environments. There is
overwhelming support for the development of
such guidelines.

When asked whether most parks should have de-
sign guidelines that specify building forms, col-
ors, details, and site features to increase harmony
in designs for new structures and for rehabilita-
tion and renovation of existing structures, 83-6%
of all respondents answered yes, 91% responded
no, and 6.8% had no opinion. Responsibility for
producing design guidelines should rest with indi-
vidual parks and service centers and to a much
lesser extent with regional offices and the Wash-
ington Office.

TABLE 6: WHAT SHOULD BE THE LEVEL OF

RESPONSroiUTY FOR DEVELOPED AREA

VISUAL QUALITY?

Position

Mean
Value*

Superintendent

3.92

Engineer, landscape architect or planner

3.89

Chief of maintenance/facilities manager

3.80

Chief of interpretation

3.46

Resource management specialist

3.26

Chief ranger

3.03

Administrative officer

2.35

•Based on 4 point scale: 1 = none, 2 = low, 3 = med
4 = high

Accountability and Responsibility

Park unit respondents were asked what level of
responsibility should be associated with the vari-
ous management positions in parks. As indicated
in table 6, the superintendent, park engineer,
landscape architect or planner, and chief of inter-
pretation are thought to be the most responsible
because of the nature of their professional re-
sponsibilities. All personnel listed are felt to have
some responsibility; only the administrative offi-
cer ranked low.

Regional/center respondents were asked how
parks should be held accountable for developed
area visual quality. These administrators, design-
ers, and planners favor greater defeign assistance
for parks, having regularly scheduled evaluations

CONCLUSIONS

Looking back at the survey results, two conclu-
sions are obvious - there is overwhelming con-
sensus about the importance of built
environmental quality in the national parks, and
many NPS personnel have already put much
thought into this issue. It is evident that the will
and talent to take action exist within the profes-
sional ranks at individual parks, regional offices,
service centers, and the national office. The ques-
tions to be faced next are those of how and who,
rather than whether and why.

A coordinated effort should be made to provide
parks with assistance in developing design
themes and guidelines and to provide staff train-
ing opportunities, as well as to delineate clear
lines of responsibility and accountability.

ED BRICK AND ONLY SO TALL:
LAW, AESTHETICS, AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

Carol Whittaker & Ervin H. Zube

INTRODUCTION

The visual quality of developed areas is an issue
in national parks as well as in towns and commu-
nities across the country. The methods used to
regulate visual quality in community settings can
provide concepts and ideas for NPS efforts to pro-
mote and protect visual quality throughout the
system. This issue, as it relates to towns and com-
munities, is addressed in the literature on law
and aesthetics and in the professional design lit-
erature, particularly that addressing design guide-
lines. Visual quality is a contextual issue, both in
the conservation of existing visual conditions and
in the design of new developments that are to be
compatible or 'in harmony' with the existing de-
veloped or natural visual context.

NPS policy, dating from the earliest years, estab-
lished the precedent for design in harmony with
existing landscapes. Numerous communities na-
tionwide have also initiated actions to protect the
visual quality of selected valuable environments
such as historic areas, central business districts,
and residential neighborhoods. The methods
used outside the park system to control the ap-
pearance of these built environments usually en-
tail some form of design criteria or design
guidelines and a review board to pass judgment
on the appearance of proposed developments or
modifications. Criteria or guidelines provide limi-
tations and suggestions for design solutions that
will achieve or maintain an existing or desired vis-
ual character. There are also new concepts being
developed and applied that offer new ap-
proaches to protection of visual quality in devel-
oped areas.

Design guidelines are frequently incorporated
into local zoning ordinances that influence the
visual quality of neighborhoods by placing limita-
tions on elements such as land use and building
setbacks. Incorporation of guidelines into ordi-
nances gives them the power of law. In the pur-
pose or introductory statement of many of these
ordinances, phrases such as "relate new develop-
ment in harmony with present character," or "re-

quire new development to be compatible with ex-
isting character" are typical.

HISTORY OF AESTHETICS IN LAW

The law can be considered a reflection of prevail-
ing social values. Far from being static, it changes
as public values change. The increasing impor-
tance of aesthetic values to the general public is
illustrated both in federal legislation and in the
reasoning in judicial decisions.

The dates and frequency of mention of scenery
conservation in federal legislation demonstrate its
increasing importance to the public. Table 1 lists
dates, titles, and excerpts of selected legislation
that mention aesthetic values, starting with the
1864 Yo-Semite and Mariposa Big Tree Grant and
the organic act of 1916.

Nearly fifty years after the organic act, the High-
way Beautification Act was a product of the envi-
ronmental movement and the White House
Conference on Natural Beauty. It focused on a
different kind of landscape. This legislation was
aimed at protecting the view along the system of
interstate highways. It focused primarily on con-
trolling billboards and junkyards - the prevention
of ugliness rather than the conservation of scen-
ery. Unlike the organic act, which applied to
lands under federal management, the Highway
Beautification Act was applied to lands or prop-
erty in private ownership. While it did not regu-
late the use of those lands, it did authorize
funding to pay for the removal of billboards or
the screening of junkyards.

In 1968 Congress passed both the Wild and Sce-
nic Rivers Act and the National Trails System Act,
both of which provided for protection of areas
with scenic values. The National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 contributed significantly to pro-
tecting, or at least considering, aesthetic values. It
applies to .all projects on federal lands, as well as
those on private lands that involve the use of fed-
eral funds. Later federal legislation, such as the

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and the
1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act
also included protection of aesthetic resources.

TABLE 1: AESTHETICS IN FEDERAL LEGISLATION

1864

Yo-Semite and Mariposa Big Tree Grove Grant

1916

Organic Act: "which purpose is to conserve
the scenery. . ."

1965

Highway Beautification Act: "to promote the
safety and recreational value of public travel,
and to preserve natural beauty"

1968

National Trails System Act: ". . . trails should
be established . . . secondarily within scenic
areas"

1968

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: ". . . selected
rivers . . . which possess outstandingly
remarkable scenic . . . values shall be
preserved in free-flowing condition ..."

1970

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
"to ensure for all Americans safe, healthful,
productive, and aesthetically and culturally
pleasing surroundings"

1972

Coastal Zone Management Act: "the coastal
zone is rich in . . . esthetic resources"
"important . . . esthetic values in the coastal
zone which are essential to the well-being of
all citizens are being irretrievably damaged or
lost"

1976

Federal Land Policy and Management Act:
"the public lands shall be managed in a
manner that will protect the quality of . . .
scenic values"

NOTE: the U.S. Forest Service derives its mandate to
conserve aesthetic resources from the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Management Act and
the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, which require
multiple resource management and from the National
Environmental Policy Act, which specifically mentions
consideration of aesthetic resources.

Legislation has also been enacted that deals with
visual quality at the local level. Among the earli-
est local efforts was the use of deed restrictions
to control the design of houses in Coral Gables, -
Florida, in the 1920s. They required that houses
conform to specified architectural styles and were

later incorporated into the zoning ordinances of
the town. They are still in place and are among
the most restrictive in contemporary communi-
ties. In addition to specifying building styles, they
specify colors, building materials, and roofing
styles, colors, and materials.

A decade later, design control ordinances were
enacted in Charleston, South Carolina, and the
Vieux Carre district of New Orleans to deal with
aesthetic protection in historic districts. Both ordi-
nances were concerned with the appearance of
modifications to existing structures and with new
buildings within the designated historic districts.
The ordinances in Charleston have not been chal-
lenged in court, but those in New Orleans have.
They have become national precedents for the le-
gality of design restrictions in historic districts.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENT

The judicial branch of government reviews the le-
gitimacy of laws enacted by the legislative arms
of government at the local, state, and federal lev-
els. Trends in consideration of aesthetic issues,
similar to those found in federal legislation, can
also be seen in judicial decisions. The cases that
illustrate these trends apply primarily to the ex-
ecutive power of local governing agencies. For
the most part they deal with the use of "police
power" to regulate the use of private land, a
power which traditionally has been justified as
protecting public health, safety, or general wel-
fare.

At the turn of the century most courts refused to
consider regulating the use of private land based
on aesthetics. The courts have, however, gradu-
ally moved towards accepting aesthetic regula-
tion. They started by camouflaging aesthetic
regulation under the guise of health and safety is-
sues, moved to including aesthetics with health,
safety, or general welfare issues, and have usu-
ally stopped just short of regulation based on aes-
thetics alone. Table 2 highlights several cases
concerned with aesthetic regulation and illus-
trates the justifications and the incremental proc-
ess of courts' movement toward regulating
appearances on private lands.

In addition to the generic judicial reviews of aes-
thetics illustrated in table 2, courts have also
ruled on challenges to specific ordinances con-
taining design guidelines. The earliest of these

cases, the so-called New Orleans triumvirate, de-
cided the legality of design restrictions applied to
private property in the Vieux Carre district. The
fourteenth amendment to the Louisiana constitu-
tion established both design guidelines and a
commission to review proposed modifications or
additions to buildings in the district with the pur-
pose of protecting its visual environment.

TABLE 2: AESTHETICS INJUDICIAL DECISIONS;
BEAUTY AND THE LAW

1905

Passaic v. Patterson Bill Posting Company (62
a. 268): "aesthetic considerations are a matter
of luxury and indulgence rather than necessity"

1914

Thomas Cusack Co. v. City of Chicago (108
N.E. 340) upheld regulations of billboards
because, "they might fall over and hurt
somebody, criminals might lurk behind them
or immoral activities might occur behind the
friendly shelter of a billboard"

1932

Perlmutter v. Greene (182 N.E. 5): "beauty
may not be queen but she is not behind the
pale of protection or respect, she may at least
shelter herself under the wing of safety,
morality or decency"

1954

Berman v. Parker (348 U.S. 104): "it is within
the power of the legislature to decide that the
community should be beautiful as well as
healthy ..."

The guidelines and commission decisions have
been challenged in court three times. Two deci-
sions have supported the use of design guide-
lines outright. One dealt with the enlargement of
a lavatory in a courtyard. The court interpreted
the commission's control over the exterior of
buildings to cover all exterior surfaces including
sides, rear, and roof. The second, in 1941, upheld
the commission's decision to order the removal
of a large sign at a gasoline station within the dis-
trict, even though the station was a modern build-
ing not of architectural and historical value. In
describing the decision, Williams notes the
court's recognition that the visual environment of
the Vieux Carre derives "not only frpm individual
worthy buildings, but from the scale of buildings,
their harmony with each other, and the combina-
tion of buildings and open spaces" (1975). In the
third case, the city attempted to require a prop-
erty owner to remove a plexiglass roof placed

over the courtyard of a restaurant in the historic
district. While the decision upheld the use of ex-
isting design guidelines to restrict private prop-
erty use, it could not be enforced since the court
found substantial evidence of nonenforcement
nearby (the commission had not enforced regula-
tions in the past, hence constitutional require-
ments for equal protection under the law were
not met). This is noteworthy as an example of a
case involving the use of design guidelines that
was decided on points of law outside of aesthetic
regulation.

CONTEMPORARY LAW

Precedents established in the historic districts of
Charleston and New Orleans and in new subdivi-
sions like Coral Gables have carried forward. Lo-
cal ordinances that regulate the use of private
property for the public good have been a popu-
lar method to protect aesthetic values on private
property. A review of a sample of zoning ordi-
nances in the library of the Planning Advisory
Service in Chicago suggests that slightly more
than 10% of the ordinances on file contain design
guidelines. The dates of their enactment, from
1961 to 1988, clearly indicate that design guide-
lines were increasingly being used to protect and
enhance aesthetic resources. By five-year incre-
ments, enactments were: 1961-65 - 1, 1966-70 -
3, 1971-1975 - 7, 1976-80 - 12, 1981-85 - 20, and
for the three-year period of 1986-88 - 11.

Although historic districts predominate, there is
clear evidence that design guidelines are also
used in contemporary communities (Whittaker
1989). The review referred to above also catego-
rized design elements present in 62 of the ordi-
nances. The most common or frequently cited
design element was building material. Color, land-
scape, and building height were the only other
elements mentioned in more than 50% of the
sample studied. Texture, scale, roof, signs, and
windows and doors were the next group of fre-
quently cited elements.

An important component in the consideration of
design guidelines is that of implementation. In
71% of the ordinances reviewed, a board or re-
view committee, usually composed of community
volunteers, was established to determine compli-
ance with the guidelines. The majority of the re-
maining ordinances relegated review to
professional staff of the community.

JUDICIAL REVIEW

In addition to the changing judicial attitudes to-
wards aesthetics illustrated in table 2, courts have
also decided suits related to the use of design
guidelines in contemporary, nonhistone areas of
communities. The primary issue raised in these
cases is the subjective nature of the guidelines.
The controls in question are most frequently in-
tended to limit the appearance of new develop-
ment so that existing visual character is
preserved, although some are designed to pre-
vent monotonous look-alike development, such
as large apartment complexes or rows of tract
housing.

The majority of the cases relate to guidelines that
attempt to maintain harmony or compatibility of
new developments with an existing, defined vis-
ual context, whether built or natural.

Courts have decided cases in support of the use
of design guidelines as well as finding against
them. Requiring compatibility with existing visual
context, especially if the ordinance or supporting
documents identify the context, seems to be most
defensible. This approach protects the courts
from having to decide what constitutes beauty.
However, the variety of opinions, both upholding
and overruling ordinances with design guide-
lines, does lend a note of caution to their use.
The clearest message seems to be that being
more specific is better, both for the appearance
controls themselves and for the definition of the
context. The courts seem to agree that aesthetic
surroundings are a legitimate public benefit for
regulation, but they will not arbitrate nor permit
a design review board unlimited rein in determin-
ing what constitutes harmonious design.

DESIGN GUIDELINES IN THE LITERATURE

The literature that discusses design guidelines var-
ies widely. Some articles praise their use in pre-
venting inappropriate or incompatible
architecture; other articles condemn them as un-
necessary. The criticisms raised against the use of
design guidelines include:

■ they limit the creative expression of designers

■ they may evoke superficial compatibility or
copycat designs

■ they do not provide a clear example or defini-
tion of context for compatibility

■ together with design review they increase the
costs of designs

■ review boards that administer guidelines do
not necessarily have the competence to inter-
pret them

Graves and Wolf (1980) raise the strongest con-
cerns about modern architectural attempts to
achieve compatibility between new and old archi-
tecture. They question modern additions or altera-
tions to older buildings that "do not get beyond
sympathetic styling or geometric alignment."
They see this as a concern with mere cosmetics
rather than the larger substantive issues of archi-
tecture - issues such as the relationship between
buildings, between architecture and the land-
scape, or the symbolic and cultural aspects of ar- T
chitecture.

A similar, although more limited, criticism of de-
sign compatibility is expressed by Gwathmey
(1987) who finds that "design review tends to ap-
plaud imitation and be very suspect of interpreta-
tion." He notes the conservative mood in our
country today that tends to equate 'good' with tra-
ditional and 'bad' with modern architecture.

The use of design guidelines as limitations on
creative design solutions is raised by Cox (1987).
He questions the NPS requirements, documented
in The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Re-
habilitation (USDI 1985), that stylistic continu-
ation or replication "compromises the original
and/or confuses the public". He questions
whether it is not "more destructive to the original
monument to have something sympathetic
(which really isn't) and different in style, or to
have something that defers from the existing style
and scale and therefore supports the original in-
tention."

The preceding comments from architects illus-
trate one level of concern about compatibility
and design guidelines. They vary dramatically.
Grave's and Wolfs concern speaks to whether ap-
pearance is not a superficial response to issues of
compatibility between old and new. Gwathmey's
more typical concern is that guidelines and de-
sign review constrain the creative expression of
'good' or even outstanding architecture. Cox
questions whether in some cases replication

might not be the most appropriate expression of
compatibility. The issue addressed in all of these
comments is the limitations on design solutions
when a design program requires compatibility be-
tween new buildings and an existing architectural
context.

The second criticism of design guidelines, closely
related to the first, is that guidelines provoke
copycat or uninspired replication of facades.
Giebner (1985) notes that early design criteria,
usually in historic districts, were formulated to
limit architectural exuberance, and might have
been an overreaction to the problem. "Out of
fear of the unknown, we opted for the comfort

of sameness. Early district criteria focused upon
conventional, quantifiable visual aspects and man-
dated their replication. Architectural plagiarism re-
sulted. New construction was often
unimaginative, banal statements. There was cohe-
siveness, but it came at the expense of spirit."
(Giebner 1985).

Support for replication or copycat design is given
added weight when the costs that might be in-
curred by innovative design solutions are consid-
ered. For innovative design proposals, additional
time for negotiation between review boards and
designers may be required. The safe, conserva-
tive approach (what has been approved before

Figure 1

HEIGHT

l^oBM

4 -k 1 k ^ ^

llll

I1J!

-M-ni

( x-

Figure 2

should be approved again) encourages copycat
design. In a similar vein, Conron (1980), describ-
ing the safety of the conformity syndrome, writes
that

Because so much new architecture is
plainly out of context with its sur-
roundings and ranges from dull to hor-
rible, it often seems considerably safer
to require adherence to a certain style
or period rather than to live danger-
ously and set guidelines based on har-
mony, scale, the use of similar or
compatible materials and design appro-
priateness to the street and city.

The third criticism raised about the use of design
guidelines is related to the competency of design
review boards to administer the guidelines. Typi-
cal procedures in communities entail the appoint-
ment of volunteer committees to review
proposed designs to grant certificates of appropri-

ateness. The committees's composition is usually
specified by profession and/or residency. Most re-
quire that at least one member be a design pro-
fessional and that at least one member be a
resident of the community or the district. In the
zoning ordinances for communities that do not
establish a special review committee, the existing
planning agency or the building inspector is re-
quired to judge compliance with the guidelines.

Guidelines that suggest methods to achieve com-
patibility, and even criteria that require certain de-
sign elements, must be interpreted by someone
or some organization. Quantifiable design ele-
ments such as height, setback, or number of park-
ing spaces or trees are relatively easy to interpret,
although still subject to the granting of variances.
More difficult are design elements such as com-
patibility of color, texture, or rhythm. The inter-
pretation of proposed designs illustrated by two
dimensional plans, elevations, and even

HIPPED

Figure 3

- — . ,-M -J,

\ I j

EAVES

WINDOWS

DOORS

DECORATIVE FEATURES

PORCH COLUMNS

GRILLWORK

Figure 4

Figures 1-4: Selected design criteria specified for alterations of existing structures and for new development in designated «
historic districts, Tucson, Arizona. (Tucson's Historic Districts Criteria for Preservation and Development, 1971, Department
of Planning, City of Tucson)

perspectives, may require a trained eye. Polshek
(1980) criticizes codified community standards
and review procedures as having no validity, un-
less those interpreting the standards have a clear
understanding and sympathy for basic design
principles. "The particular and detailed proposi-
tions inherent in questions of design compatibil-
ity can be approached intelligently only by those
who are professionally trained in the art of build-
ing design."

Another issue addressed in the literature and
raised in several judicial decisions is the defini-
tion of the existing visual context to which new
development is to be compatible. Definition of
context is one of the critical issues underlying de-
sign compatibility in historic districts and in con-
temporary communities that call for visual
harmony with the existing environment. It is sepa-
rate from the question of what is good design or
even what is aesthetically pleasing. If the desired
design solution is development that is compatible
or harmonious with an existing context, whether
built or natural, that context must be defined.

The historic district ordinance in Savannah,
Georgia, provided one of the first models for de-
fining context. The ordinance listed 16 design
elements such as height, proportion of facades,
proportion of openings, and materials and re-
quired that at least six of those elements be re-
spected (duplicated) for new development to be
compatible. In Dallas, Texas, urban design per-
sonnel developed a historic district ordinance
and selected 12 criteria for inclusion. The criteria
are grouped in four general categories: qualities
of the block, qualities of the building fonn, quali-
ties of building treatment, and qualities of facade
accentuation. The number of criteria that must be
satisfied for a proposed design varies according
to the strength of character expressed in different
areas (Lu 1980).

As indicated in table 3, the city of Tucson, Ari-
zona, has identified criteria for both alterations to
existing structures and new construction within
designated historic districts. The major difference
between the two is the addition in the new con-
struction section of rhythm, which is defined as a
reflection "of the proportion, pattern, and rhythm
of openings" of designated historic structures in
the area, and of roof types, which are specified
as similarity of "configuration, mass, and materi-
als to the prevailing historical style and period of
the existing structures . . ." (Tucson 1987).

The definition of context, and consequently the
establishment of criteria or guidelines for compati-
bility, is easiest in historic areas with a continuity
of architectural style, more difficult with a mix-
ture of building styles, and perhaps most difficult
in contemporary, rural, or natural areas. Conse-
quently, existing design guidelines are usually
more detailed in historic districts where existing
character is more obvious.

TABLE 3: TUCSON ZONING CODE, DIVISION 28. "H"

HISTORIC DISTRICT AND LANDMARK ZONE

DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA FOR ALTERATIONS AND

NEW CONSTRUCTION

Criterion

Alterations

New

Height

Setback

Proportion

Rhythm

Roof type

Surface texture

Site utilization

Projects and recessions

Details

Building form

Another issue that is seldom addressed in design
guidelines, but which is related to the definition
of context, is the observer's perception of the
context that is not a static two-dimensional phe-
nomenon. An environment is a multidimensional
experience - sight, sounds, and smells all contrib-
ute to perceptions. Past experiences and expecta-
tions can also influence perceptions of an
environment. Lu (1980) notes that qualities such
as materials, color, scale, and rhythm "should be
visualized not merely in static but in dynamic situ-
ations, while viewing the district from different
time and space perspectives." Another perspec-
tive on defining context is provided by Conron
(1980) who states "new architecture should relate
as much to place as it does to style ... it must
be cognizant of the city vistas and silhouettes,
the natural hills and valleys. . ."

RESPONSES TO CRITICISMS

The most overwhelming response to criticisms of
the use of design guidelines is in their wide-
spread use. They are used because without them
the public is not satisfied with the visual quality
of development in special or significant areas. De-
sign review, and the guidelines upon which most
reviews are predicated, are frequently a response
to failures of modern designers to respect a sense
of place. Design guidelines in ordinances protect-
ing historic districts are there to protect a sense
of place; those in contemporary development are
designed to establish a sense of place. Fitch
(1987), noting the "high rents, minuscule vacancy
ratios and soaring property values found in these
controlled areas, suggests that it is to just such
districts that the city dweller turns if he can af-
ford it . . . (for) the sense of blessed relief that
such controlled environments give him in escap-
ing from the visual and sonic chaos of the typical
uncontrolled American streetscape."

Another response to the criticism that design
guidelines limit creative expression by designers
is the attempt to develop guidelines that focus on
design relationships rather than imitations of an
existing context. This is the practitioner's re-
sponse to the problem. Harrell (1980) describes
the creativity and flexibility used by the Boston
Redevelopment Authority as a "concept of con-
trol through identification of salient design charac-
teristics." This involves first the definition of those
essential elements of any building (or group of
buildings) that must be carefully protected during
development and second, a process whereby
nonessential features can be the subject of nego-
tiation. The essential elements of design relation-
ships are those features that are most important
to achieve compatibility. This approach recog-
nizes that skillful design is necessary to use de-
sign guidelines creatively.

Responses to criticisms raised about the composi-
tion of review board memberships vary. The de-
termining factors in the successful use of review
boards appear to hinge more on procedures for
the review process and recognition that design re-
view is a process of communication. Clear guide-
lines with both written text and illustrations and
early predesign meetings between staff and de-
signer contribute to compatible design.

Early and frequent meetings are the best re-
sponse to the criticism that design review in-

creases the cost of projects. Early communication
between design review boards, community staff,
and project designer while a design is still in the
concept phase seems to lessen the chance that
the review board will find a design grossly incom-
patible and consequently require expensive de-
sign modifications. Along with minimizing the
increased costs involved by early communication
between staff or review board and designer,
higher property values and rents and lower va-
cancy rates could very well recoup increased de-
sign costs.

DESIGN GUIDELINES IN
RURAL LANDSCAPES

The literature reviewed above deals primarily
with urban and suburban settings. Rural land-
scapes present another challenge. While the con-
cern for rural historic preservation has been
raised as an issue, much less has been published
about methods to accomplish such preservation
while still permitting economically viable land
uses and consequent changes in the visual ap-
pearance of rural areas.

A landmark effort in such applications is the
model established by the National Park Service
for Boxley Valley in Buffalo National River. The
master plan for the site classified Boxley Valley
as a private use zone, a designation that permit-
ted continuing private use and some modifica-
tions of the existing landscape. As a historic
district listed on the national register, existing de-
sign guidelines apply to modifications of build-
ings within the designated district. The innovative
Land Use Plan/Cultural Landscape Report (USDI
1985) included design criteria to be applied to
the district as a whole. Specifically the plan calls
for:

■ reasonable efforts to use a rural landscape for
its historically intended purpose or compatible
use that requires minimal alteration to its distin-
guishing natural and cultural components

■ replacement of distinctive natural and man-
made components should match the old in
composition, design, color, texture, and other
visual qualities such as weathering charac-
teristics

■ alterations and additions to the rural landscape
required to accommodate a new use are ac-
ceptable . . . when such design is compatible

with size, scale, color, material, and character
of the landscape (NPS 1985, Alesch 1987).

Arendt and Yaro (1987) have dealt with similar is-
sues in their report on development patterns in
the Connecticut River valley. Their study centered
on the impact of single family subdivision devel-
opment on established rural land use patterns.
Their recommendations for maintaining visual pat-
terns of development compatible with the con-
text call for the clustering of houses with the
retention of open spaces between the clusters.
Belknap (1980), in an essay on compatibility of
new buildings in rural settings, notes that the
form of a building is often closely associated with
a regional identity, as in saltbox and pueblo
styles. Visual context provided by existing ver-
nacular architecture should not be underesti-
mated.

The design manual for the island of Nantucket
covers rural or outlying areas as well as the
towns on the island. The design guidelines for
these outlying areas include the more traditional
architectural elements such as materials, massing,
and roofs, but also establish criteria for siting
buildings in different landscape types. These crite-
ria range from protecting the crests of hills and
valley floors to using natural vegetation to screen
new development (Lang 1978).

CONCLUSIONS

There are several conclusions that can be drawn
from the literature. First, there is increasing pub-
lic support for controlling development to protect
visual quality in selected landscapes. Federal leg-
islation has increasingly called for the protection
of visual quality on federal lands managed by dif-
ferent agencies, and on private lands or projects
where the federal government has some stand-
ing. Local and regional governments have also en-
acted legislation to protect visual quality. Courts
have supported this action, given some con-
straints.

Second, the practices and procedures established
in local communities provide insights about both
design elements that might be considered, as
well as procedures to develop and implement de-
sign guidelines. While recognizing that local com-
munities have legal constraints that are not
applicable to NPS management actions, local de-
sign guidelines have been implemented, chal-

lenged in courts, and reviewed in the profes-
sional literature. This trial by fire should not be ig-
nored.

Third, there are important areas of agreement
across contemporary developments and historic
districts about elements that are perceived to be
salient for protecting or establishing visual quality
in developed areas.

Fourth, the wide use in local communities of
guidelines that include materials, colors, land-
scapes, and building heights suggests that these
elements are important. The literature, however,
emphasizes that design guidelines should be for
specific contexts and that it is not possible to pre-
determine which design elements should be in-
cluded. Several authors argue that a trained eye
is necessary to determine important design ele-
ments in different contexts, and that definition of
context is critical, or that training is necessary to
move beyond architectural replication of existing
development. This attitude must be balanced
against public perception research, which sug-
gests that the public sees replication of architec-
tural elements such as facades as contributing to
compatibility of new development with an exist-
ing context.

A fifth conclusion drawn from the literature is the
emphasis placed on process as well as product.
The successful design of a project that will be
compatible with an existing context, and there-
fore protect visual quality, seems to be strongly
related to communication and reflection between
designer and client. The best designs, meaning
those that are compatible but not necessarily rep-
licative, arise from early and frequent communica-
tion and negotiation, rather than rigidly designing
according to a set of rules.

Finally, it is important to note that rapid advances
in computer-based visual simulation technology
are providing valuable tools for facilitating more
informed communications and reflection between
designers and clients. Whether viewing alterna-
tive facade treatments in tenns of materials, col-
ors, or details, or juxtaposing photographic
images or drawings of site and structure, for ex-
ample, opportunities for both designer and client
to review alternative design proposals with
greater resemblance to real world conditions is
greatly enhanced. Examples of these kinds of
simulations are discussed in following sections of
this report.

REFERENCES

Alesch, R.

1987 Evaluating and managing rural cultural
landscapes in the National Park System.
In Aesthetics of the Rural Renaissance:
Proceedings of the 1987 Conference.
California Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo.

Arendt, R. and Yaro, R.D.

1987 Rural landscape planning in the

Connecticut River Valley of Massachu-
setts. In Aesthetics of the Rural Renais-
sance: Proceedings of the 1987
Conference. California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo.

Belknap, R.K.

1987 Guidelines for improvement in the rural
landscape. In Aesthetics of the Rural
Renaissance: Proceedings of the 1987
Conference. California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo.

Cox

1987 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation. Preservation Forum.
2(2):2-5.

Conron, J. P.

1980 A three-dimensional approach. In Old
and New Architecture Design Relation-
ship. Preservation Press, Washington,
DC.

Duerksen, CJ.

1986 Aesthetics and land-use controls: be-
yond ecology and economics. Planning
Advisory Service Report #399. American
Planning Association. Chicago, IL.

Fitch, James Marston

1987 Preservation Forum. 2(1)1:5-7 '.

Giebner, R.C.

1985 Design controls in historic districts.
Presentation at the National
Preservation Conference, Seattle, WA.

Graves, M. and Wolf, G.

1980 Beyond mere manners and cosmetic
compatibility. In Old and New
Architecture: Design Relationship.
Preservation Press, Washington, DC.

Gwathmey, C.

1987 Viewpoints: Design Review.
Preservation Foru m ( 1 ) 1 : 2-4 .

Harrell, JA.

1980. Guidelines and Design Review: An
Urban Experience. In Old and New
Architecture Design Relationship.
Preservation Press, Washington, DC.

Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
1980 The role of historic preservation in to-
morrow's rural landscape. In New
Directions in Rural Preservation.
Tishler, W. H. Washington, DC.

Lang, J. C.

1978 Building with Nantucket in Mind.

Nantucket Historic District Commission.
Nantucket, MA.

Lu, W.

1980

Preservation criteria: Defining and pro-
tecting design relationships. In Old and
New Architecture: Design Relationship.
Preservation Press, Washington, DC.

National Park Service

1985 Land Use Plan, Cultural Landscape

Report, Boxley Valley, Buffalo National
River, Arkansas.

Polshek, J.

1980 The role of education in achieving de-
sign relationship. In Old and New
Architecture: Design Relationship.
Preservation Press, Washington, DC.

Tucson, Arizona

1987 Tucson Code, Ordinance No. 6789,
adopted Sept. 14, 1987. City Planning
Department.

United States Department of the Interior

1985 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for Historic Preservation Projects: With
Guidelines for Applying the Standards.
Government Printing Office.
Washington, DC.

Whittaker, Carol

1989 Design guidelines and the law: history
and analysis of design guidelines in zon-
ing ordinances. Unpublished MIA
Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Williams, Jr., N. and Taylor, J.

1985 American Planning Law. Callaghan &
Co,. Wilmette, IL.

REDICTING ALTERNATIVE VISUAL FUTURES: AN
ORIENTATION TO COMPUTER SIMULATIONS

Joseph Crystal

STEWARDSHIP OF VISUAL RESOURCES

Successful stewardship of visual resources is as
important to the success of a park as the effective
management of its natural and cultural resources.
It is virtually impossible to affect one without in-
fluencing the other. To assist a park superinten-
dent in managing the natural and cultural
resources within a park there are often many peo-
ple and management techniques available, as
well as numerous in-depth studies and manage-
ment plans. However, when dealing with visual
resources and the built environment, the tradi-
tional tools available to the manager are some-
what limited.

Earlier papers have addressed the definition and
components of visual quality, have established
that there is general agreement among park and
design professionals on the ability to recognize
high visual quality in a built environment, and
have summarized what the law says regarding
mandating good design. None of this provides
much practical guidance for the park manager in
creating a visually appropriate park environment.
It is usually left to designers to develop schemes
for appropriate park facilities. Presumably these
designers are able to visualize a design that fits
into a park setting. Their task then is to communi-
cate this information to a park manager and staff
and to explain its concepts, functions, appropri-
ateness, and other salient characteristics.

In order to study the design of a new facility and
convey this to others, a designer has traditionally
used two and three dimensional techniques with
which many readers may be familiar, including:

■ plans - including site plans, floor plans, roof
plans, and others

■ elevations - such as the north, south, east, and
west views of a building's exterior walls

■ sections - a cut through a building or site to il-
lustrate the horizontal and vertical relation-
ships in the facility

■ miscellaneous - a number of other techniques,
such as employing photographs of similar fa-
cilities and presenting samples of proposed ma-
terials for use in order to convey the design
intent, colors, textures, and other characteristics

■ perspective sketches - artists' renderings de-
picting the proposed facility from various van-
tage points

■ scale models - these vary from being simple
study models conveying general siting, scale,
mass, and form to very complex models show-
ing the design in fine detail

The ability of these techniques to effectively com-
municate to designers and nondesigners the in-
tent and detail of planned developments varies
greatly. Understanding the style and general ap-
pearance of a facility and assessing visual impacts
to the environment and compatibility with a set-
ting is not easy. It is not unusual to hear a park
staff member proclaim, "I didn't think it was go-
ing to look like that!" in reference to a newly con-
structed park facility. Even the most successful
depictions of a proposed development can be
suspected of using artistic license to cover up
weaknesses in a design.

Additional limitations to these conventional tech-
niques may include:

■ the time required to accomplish

■ due to the time constraints, usually only a lim-
ited number of graphics are produced

■ drawings are static - depicting one view, one
angle, and one light condition

■ graphics are subject to artistic interpretation

■ stylized graphics are often difficult to under-
stand - even for designers

■ storage space required and deterioration of im-
ages without proper storage facilities

THE NEW TECHNOLOGY

Wire Diagrams

Recent developments in data volume capability
and speed in minicomputer and PC technology
have created a revolution in how designers do
business and how they convey designs to their
clients. This computer-aided design and drafting
technology offers a broad range of electronic ap-
plications to the design professions. Generally it
creates the opportunity for all aspects of the de-
sign process from conceptual design through the
production of construction drawings and specifi-
cations to be done without putting pencil to pa-
per. Part of this capability includes the ability to
create a variety of images with a speed and accu-
racy not available in the traditional two- and
three-dimensional techniques.

There are primarily three types of computer-gen-
erated images used to visually simulate designs:
wire diagrams, animations, and realistic imaging.
Each of these simulations is based on detailed
data that are entered into the computer prior to
creating a visual simulation. A typical survey for a
project site is conducted collecting topographic
information, locations of natural features such as
trees, rock outcrops, and shrubs, as well as exist-
ing buildings and utilities. This information is en-
tered into the computer using techniques called
digitizing and scanning, or often the survey data
are collected electronically. In this case the discs
containing the data are inserted directly in the
computer, forming the existing conditions infor-
mation. The proposed design information is also
entered into the computer, usually by digitizing.
If the design was done on a computer, the de-
sign data can be merged with the information
from the survey.

The visual simulations developed from these data
result from calculations employing exact horizon-
tal and vertical information so that the images ac-
curately mimic what is seen by the human eye.
They are not guesswork or scaled from drawings
as is often the case with traditional hand-gener-
ated techniques. Once the existing conditions
data and the proposed design data are in the
computer, the point from which the image is
viewed can be changed easily so that at a pro-
posed facility can be seen from many different an-
gles in a matter of a few minutes. The lighting
can also be manipulated to simulate changes ex-
perienced within a 24-hour period. A design can
be modified in response to reactions to a variety
of perspectives and conditions.

Wire diagrams are line drawing representations
of proposed designs. They are open-frame draw-
ings that show the facility in a way that is similar
to a constructed isometric drawing. However, in
terms of representing a large landscape area, it is
very effective in delineating the undulation of the
ground plane. It also has the capability to show
existing topography as compared to the pro-
posed changes of the new design. As such it as-
sists in the assessment of environmental impacts
and compatibility or "fit" with a setting. As shown
in figure 1, the wire lines connect two points in
order to depict a change in elevation. Then the
lines run together forming polygons to indicate
topographic change over a large surface area.
These diagrams may also form the basis for hand-
rendered drawings providing a more accurate im-
age of a setting.

The computer can also shade the wire diagrams,
filling in the spaces between the lines. This shad-
ing can be done with many different colors and
textures so that red bricks and wooden shingles
may be depicted. It can also insert trees, ground
covers, and people, which results in a realistic
photographic-quality image.

Animations

Animated visual simulations may be created to be
a walk through, drive through, fly over, or any
other type of experience a designer may wish to
produce (see figure 2). An animation is merely a
compilation of images that are produced via the
wire diagram and/or its enhancements. The qual-
ity of a sequence is based on the detail of the im-
agery contained in each frame as well as the
number of images viewed per minute in much
the same way that a motion picture cartoon is cre-
ated. The more images that are viewed per sec-
ond depicting subtle differences in the view, the
smoother and more realistic the animation is. Ani-
mation is an excellent device for depicting a se-
quential visitor experience. It is, however, more
time consuming and expensive to produce be-
cause of the number of individual images re-
quired for smooth animation.

Figure 1: Wire
diagram depicting the
Tennessee Highway 96
overpass of the
Natchez Trace
Parkway.

Figure 2: Design
alternatives for the
Highway 96 overpass.

Realistic Imaging

This type of visual simulation superimposes the
design of a proposed facility on a photograph of
a particular view. The process to achieve such an
effect requires that a photograph of a particular
viewshed be taken. The data is then entered in
the computer via video scanning. The design
data are then entered in the computer along with
a site plan allowing the viewshed and a pro-
posed viewpoint to be located planimetrically.
The scale-adjusted designed image is then elec-
tronically painted on the photograph. The
painted image can be detailed to be plain or real-
istic in its depiction of materials and textures as
desired. The result is normally an image that
looks as if it has already been built, fitting natu-
rally into the landscape. As indicated in figure 3,

this technique facilitates the study of the visual
impacts of various design solutions.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Computer visual simulations have many advan-
tages over traditional hand-drawn repre-
sentations. Once the appropriate background
data is in the computer, many images from differ-
ent viewpoints under differing lighting conditions
can be created in a matter of minutes or seconds.
This allows a designer and the client to evaluate
a design and its impacts quickly and make
changes or develop new design alternatives as
needed. The compatibility with a setting can be
assessed, and the need for additional vegetation
as screening from adjacent land uses, the impacts

Figure 3 A realistic
image from the same
perspective as the
animation. (All
simulations by Design
Workshop, Inc.,
Denver, Colorado)

Figure 4: A view from
an animation,
approaching the
underpass on the
Natchez Trace
Parkway.

of earthwork, etc., can easily be delineated and
understood. The massing of the building compo-
nents and the appropriateness of its colors and
textures can be clearly seen. This capability is
having a revolutionary effect on the design indus-
try. No longer do clients have to wait until a pro-
ject is completed to understand all of a design's
nuances. This results in better designs that are
more effective in meeting clients' needs.

The images created through this medium are opti-
cally accurate due to the computer program's abil-
ity to adjust the data in response to the viewpoint
selected, thus mimicking the three-dimensional
character of the actual place being simulated, in-
cluding factors such as foreshortening of views
that take place in normal visual perception.

Visual simulations created by computers can be
reproduced on paper, in slide form, or in video
format. The digital data are directly transferred
from the computer to these media. Hand-drawn
simulations must usually be photographed before
the images can be transferred to any other me-
dium.

The simulation data for a project may easily be
transferred from one computer to another via mo-
dem or transfer of computer discs. This feature al-
lows a group of consultants to share the same
base information in a convenient fashion. For ex-
ample, an architect can develop a design for a
structure and then send the data to the landscape
architect without either person leaving his or her
office.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the computer to simulate the environ-
ment has given managers an extremely effective
tool with which to evaluate the visual quality, en-
vironmental compatibility, and impacts of a pro-
posed design. Typical applications of this
technique would be used during the early phases
of schematic design to assist designers and man-
agers in developing effective design concepts
and alternatives. Later in the process, simulation
can be used to refine siting and grading of the
landscape, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness
of plant massing for screening from adjacent
sites. The ability afforded by computer simula-
tions to quickly look at a design from a variety of
viewpoints and distances is of great assistance in
this regard.

This technology provides the park manager with
the ability to assess not only designs proposed
for the park but also the ability to study develop-
ment proposed adjacent to park lands. With such
information, park managers can assist in the de-
velopment of strategies for dealing with potential
negative or devastating impacts. With the aid of
simulations, it is possible to determine if external
park uses are even visible from various vantage
points within the park. Lastly, the importance of
this tool for creating graphics appropriate for pub-
lic meetings, publications, press releases, and
similar communications requirements cannot be
overstated. The ability to create images that ap-
pear lifelike gives meaning to the cliche that a
picture is worth a thousand words.

ROTECTING THE VISUAL QUALITY OF NATIONAL
PARKS FROM IMPACTS OF EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT

Luther Propst & Mary Schmid

At the foot of the mountain, the park
ended and suddenly all was squalor. I
was struck by the strange compartmen-
talization that goes on in America: a
belief that no commercial activities be
allowed inside a national park, but per-
mitting unrestrained development out-
side, even though the landscape may
be just as outstanding. America has
never quite grasped that you can live
in a place without making it ugly. That
beauty doesn't have to be confined be-
hind fences, as if a national park were
sort of a zoo for nature.

Bill Bryson The Lost Continent 1989

Managers in the National Park Service
cannot perceive their responsibilities
in isolation from their local commu-
nity, state, and region. While units
may have been selected because of
their national significance, entry into
the national park system does not im-
ply removal from the regional context
in which these units exist. Park manag-
ers must develop and implement a
proactive partnership with neighboring
communities.

We recommend that the National Park
Service develop a technical assistance
program aimed specifically at gateway
communities and regions linked to na-
tional park system areas.

The National Park Service should en-
courage and assist local governments
in long-term land use planning and
sustainable economic development at
ecosystem, landscape, and regional
scales.

The National Park Service 1992

National Parks for the 21st Century

The Vail Agenda

GATEWAY COMMUNITIES

The national park system is something in which
Americans take great pride. It celebrates the diver-
sity of American life and history. Our national
parks provide experiences that are increasingly
difficult to come by in the urbanized world, and
they generate an enormous wellspring of support
and enthusiasm across the nation. This stature
provides enormous opportunities to protect the
parks and enhance their legacy.

Almost by definition, many national parks were
created in remote areas, far from the pressures
for intensive development. For over 100 years,
this isolation and the seasonality of the tourist
trade constrained growth in the small gateway
communities located near most parks, helping
protect visual quality and ecological integrity
from the adverse effects of incompatible land
uses on adjacent private lands.

GATEWAY COMMUNITIES AND GROWTH

Increasingly, however, many national parks have
become magnets for residential, resort, and com-
mercial development. Several factors are responsi-
ble for changing the traditional isolation of these
areas:

Gateway communities adjacent to formerly
isolated western parks are growing with the
expansion of the year-round tourist trade
and the maturation of resort communities.

Changes in business technology and a more
dispersed national economy allow more peo-
ple to move out of urban areas and into
communities surrounding wildlands.

As the nation's population ages, more Ameri-
cans are retiring to communities in pristine
settings.

Metropolitan sprawl is encroaching on for-
merly isolated protected areas.

Many. new recreation areas, national sea-
shores, and wildlife refuges have been cre-
ated on the edge of metropolitan areas.

Many examples demonstrate the recent growth
near national parks and other protected areas:

Census data show that between 1980 and
1990, the 20 counties surrounding Yellow-
stone National Park and the adjoining wild-
lands grew at a faster rate than any state in
the nation; this growth was motivated almost
entirely by the attraction of living adjacent to
wildlands.

Approximately 90% of the 352-mile bound-
ary of Shenandoah National Park is bor-
dered by private land. In 1982
approximately 10% of the boundary was de-
veloped with suburban development; by
1992 this figure had risen to approximately
40%.

The town of Springdale, Utah, recently ap-
proved an eight-story IMAX movie theater
and commercial complex directly adjacent to
the only public campground in Zion Na-
tional Park.

As a result of rapid growth in neighboring com-
munities, inappropriate and poorly-sited develop-
ment threatens the gateways, viewsheds, historic
settings, and ecosystems of many national parks.
A 1988 National Park Service report, Natural Re-
sources Assessment and Action Program, identi-
fied approximately 1,750 existing and prospective
threats to national park system natural areas
alone. Two-thirds of these threats were tied to ac-
tivities outside park boundaries.

INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT ON
ADJACENT LAND THREATENS THE
VISUAL QUALITY OF NATIONAL PARKS

In addition to damaging the ecosystem, un-
planned development on private property out-
side park boundaries is doing great harm to the
visual integrity of these areas - marring scenic vis-
tas with intrusive buildings and roads, polluting
streams before they flow through parks, clouding
the air over distinctive natural settings (including
the Grand Canyon), and intruding on the visitor
experience with the noise and lights of traffic and
urban activities. And as more Americans choose

to live on the perimeter of wilderness areas,
threats to our national parks from ill-sited devel-
opment and poorly planned growth will continue
to intensify, adversely affecting not only park re-
sources and the visitor experience, but also the
very quality of life that can attract high-quality
jobs and sustainable economic activity to commu-
nities adjoining national parks.

The Consequences of not Addressing
Adjacent Development Issues

The following two examples demonstrate the
high cost of failing to deal adequately with adja-
cent development before a crisis develops.

Manassas National Battlefield Park. In 1988 a
developer proposed to build a small office park
and neighborhood shopping center on a 542-acre
site adjacent to the Manassas National Battlefield
Park in suburban northern Virginia. This proposal
brought objections from the Park Service, as Civil
War historians had agreed that the site is histori-
cally important in its own right, and current traf-
fic flow through the park was already
significantly degrading the visitor experience.

The Park Service eventually supported this rela-
tively modest proposal based on the assurance
that development would be designed to reduce
impacts on the battlefield. However, the devel-
oper later announced a new plan for a dramati-
cally expanded development on the same parcel,
which included a 1.2 million-square-foot regional
shopping mall, 1.7 million square feet of office
space, and 560 residential units. Prince William
County officials vigorously supported the ex-
panded proposal due to the perceived prestige
and increased tax base the proposal would bring.
County officials decided that the new plan re-
quired no new zoning permits or approvals and
no public hearings.

The ensuing battle resulted in federal condemna-
tion of the entire parcel, converting the property
to federal ownership at the highly inflated cost of
approximately $118 million. The decision to use
the legislative taking tool to rescue this historic
site was reached because the visual and traffic im-
pacts of a regional shopping mall and associated
development would have seriously compromised
the scenic and historical value of the entire battle-
field.

Although acquisition of nationally significant
parkland is always justifiable, the tremendous ex-
pense of buying this parcel (completely outside
the Park Service's acquisition priorities) could
have been avoided by early agreement on land
use policies that met both local and national ob-
jectives. A good-faith, collaborative growth man-
agement process, perhaps with federal
acquisition of a portion of the parcel, might have
protected the integrity of the battlefield, saved
taxpayers millions of dollars, and provided eco-
nomic benefits for the county.

Rocky Mountain National Park. A similar situ-
ation arose at Rocky Mountain National Park in
Colorado when growth around the town of Estes
Park on the park's eastern boundary threatened
to degrade park views, expand uncontrolled use
of the park by neighboring landowners, block
public access, and cut off wildlife routes and win-
ter habitat. In an urgent response in 1989 Con-
gress expanded the park by 400 acres to prevent
development of a large multifamily residential
project. Foresight and planning could have pro-
tected this boundary much earlier and saved tax-
payers considerable expense.

EXTERNAL THREATS ARE A
SYSTEMWIDE PROBLEM

The Manassas controversy is symptomatic of the
growing threat to many units in the national park
system from incompatible activities outside park
boundaries. While many of the threats to other ar-
eas may be less dramatic than the proposed Wil-
liam Center Mall at Manassas, they are equally
insidious in undermining the integrity of park re-
sources.

The Conservation Foundation's 1985 study, Na-
tional Parks for a New Generation, documented
the growing external threats to many units
throughout the park system. A 1989 report by the
National Parks and Conservation Association, In-
vesting in Park Futures, reinforced this finding.
The National Park Service's 1992 report and rec-
ommendations to the director, National Parks for
the 21st Century- The Vail Agenda, also recog-
nizes increased development adjacent to national
parks as a systemwide challenge:

Figure I Simulation
of the existing
landscape, where site
photographs were
matched electronically
to a three-dimensional
terrain model.
(Simulations by
Design Workshop,
Inc., Denver,
Colorado)

esi

nfta*i i- .<»» -

'imaoiMfe^

Figure 2. Simulation
of the commercial
development matched
to the digitized terrain
model and site
photographs.
(Simulations by
Design Workshop,
Inc., Denver,
Colorado)

Increased population and expanded re-
source and energy demands are impacting
park resources such as air and water quality,
wildlife, and scenic vistas. Shared ecosys-
tems as well as cultural landscapes are being
adversely impacted. For the Park Service, the
problem is now recognized as one with sys-
temwide dimensions, and it has focused con-
cern on how parks can most effectively deal
with park neighbors and their activities.

Innovative measures to protect the visual quality
of national parks from the intrusion of surround-
ing development must be vigorously pursued. Ex-
ternal pressures require attention at the source:
the privately-owned lands in communities adja-
cent to parks. However, the National Park Serv-
ice's, mandate to preserve park resources
unimpaired, difficult to apply inside the parks, is
far more complex when threats originate outside
park boundaries. Neither the Park Service nor
many gateway communities have been eager to
address the conflicts that arise when incompat-
ible development is proposed on private prop-
erty adjacent to parks. The Park Service itself
recognizes that "external threats, though gener-
ally the most serious, are receiving little attention
. . . because they are considered more complex
and much more difficult to deal with." (Gregory
1985)

Park managers face several challenges when ad-
dressing external threats. They have few obvious
tools beyond persuasion to affect the outcome of
local development decisions. If a superintendent
questions a large commercial or residential devel-
opment adjoining park boundaries, he or she
risks being perceived as a meddlesome neighbor.
Many residents view protected land as an un-
wanted drain on the local tax base and may ex-
press resentment over what they see as federal
intrusion in local land use affairs. For these rea-
sons, some Park Service officials do not partici-
pate in local land use matters.

As a practical matter, opportunities to defend
against threats arising outside park boundaries
vary, depending on the source of the threat. In
particular, activities dependent on federal fund-
ing or requiring federal permits can be addressed
in ways not readily applied to other activities.

Although federal law authorizes the Park Service
to influence the use of private property to protect

park resources in a few places (for example, Red-
wood National Park and Cape Cod National Sea-
shore), the Park Service generally has little
explicit authority over adjoining private property.
Regulatory control over local land use is - and
should remain - principally a local function. How-
ever, the management of an increasing number
of parks requires close cooperation with neigh-
boring landowners and local governments to en-
sure that local land use decisions properly
consider park values and resources.

The ability of the National Park Service to protect
the visual quality of park resources and to pro-
vide a quality experience for the visitor increas-
ingly depends on its ability to influence decisions
and mobilize action by state, local, and private
decision makers. Cooperative models are needed
involving the Park Service, local and state govern-
ments, and private landowners.

PROTECTING THE VISUAL QUALITY OF
NATIONAL PARKS FROM IMPACTS OF
DEVELOPMENT EN GROWING GATEWAY
COMMUNITIES

Reconciling development pressure with protec-
tion of visual, cultural, and natural resources is es-
sential for ensuring both the integrity of many
national parks and the long-term economic vital-
ity of neighboring communities. Federal land ac-
quisition has long played a critical role in
reconciling these conflicts. However, not all sce-
nic land can, or should, be acquired as a public
resource. There will always be private land that
must be managed carefully if nearby natural ar-
eas, cultural landscapes, and scenic vistas are to
retain their integrity.

The most promising opportunity to meet this chal-
lenge lies in developing and implementing di-
verse cooperative mechanisms that avoid and
resolve threats from adjacent development. The
success of these solutions requires full use of the
Park Service's design and development skills as
well as sensitivity to the objectives of adjacent lo-
cal governments and landowners.

Successful efforts to manage growth have several
elements. With awareness of these elements,
park managers will better work with gateway
communities to ensure that future development
does not degrade park visual quality.

Assist in Building Shared Visions
of the Future and Tailor-Made,
Tangible Measures for Implementation

Among the most effective measures for improv-
ing the manner in which adjacent communities
deal with growth is to develop a positive, shared
vision for the future of the community and its
neighboring national park. A local vision address-
ing a range of community needs and imple-
mented with tangible projects - such as design
controls and land use management techniques as
components of a comprehensive growth manage-
ment program - is much more likely to succeed
than simply trying to bring about local adoption
of ordinances to protect park values. Successful
initiatives are tailor-made for the unique local cir-
cumstances surrounding each park, rather than
following a uniform, nationwide methodology.
By focusing on a vision with popular appeal that
is built upon distinctive local assets, a lasting con-
stituency for protecting these local assets can be
built.

Front Royal, Virginia - This historic town, adjoin-
ing Shenandoah National Park, launched an effec-
tive downtown revitalization program with
measurable results - reduced vacancy rates, in-
creased rent, and a more attractive setting - that
created local momentum for implementing con-
servation and visual enhancement measures in
the town's subdivision regulations and a gateway
enhancement project.

Successful Communities Program in Greater Yel-
lowstone - The Sonoran Institute is a nonprofit or-
ganization based in Tucson, Arizona, that works
nationwide to preserve the integrity of protected
natural areas by cooperatively resolving potential
conflicts between conservation interests and the
needs of neighboring communities, and by ensur-
ing that adjacent development adheres to the
highest level of environmental compatibility and
sensitivity. The institute has worked with local
sponsors to convene successful workshops in six
communities within the greater Yellowstone eco-
system. These workshops use informed communi-
cation to forge partnerships between park
managers, conservationists, developers, and local
officials, and to develop solutions tailor-made for
unique local circumstances that protect park re-
sources while meeting the economic and social
objectives of landowners and communities. The
workshops have helped communities change in
ways that are sensitive to local values, while ad-

dressing the need to preserve and protect the
greater Yellowstone ecosystem.

The first successful communities workshop took
place in the town of Jackson, Wyoming, in March
1990. The workshop resulted in strong public
support for the town and Teton County to coop-
erate in developing a joint land use plan. Success-
ful Communities Roundtable, a broad-based,
nongovernmental group, was created to convene
regular meetings on planning issues and to moni-
tor the planning process.

Recognizing that extractive industries (such as
lumber and mining) are in decline, Teton County
has rejected a future overly dependent upon any
single sector and is working to build a balanced
economy that includes asset-based tourism, retire-
ment, agriculture, footloose businesses, and pro-
fessional activity - which will minimize negative
impacts on the county's scenic attractiveness and
unique western character. As a result, while there
is a statewide recession, Teton County is boom-
ing.

Local ordinances that severely restrict develop-
ment in ecologically significant and scenic areas,
protect valued community character, and pro-
mote diverse and affordable housing are under
consideration.

Another consequence of the Jackson workshop
was that it opened the door for workshops in
other greater Yellowstone communities, including
Driggs and Victor, Idaho (Teton County); Red
Lodge, Montana (Carbon County); Livingston,
Montana (Park County); Dubois, Wyoming (Fre-
mont County); and Gardiner and Cooke City,
Montana (Park County).

In Red Lodge, the community's small town atmos-
phere and unique historical architecture and cul-
ture were identified as valuable community
assets. Other goals included preventing unsightly
'strip development and protecting the area's natu-
ral beauty, environmental quality (including clean
air and water), rural setting, open space charac-
ter, and abundant recreational opportunities. Par-
ticipants expressed the general concern that
unregulated and poorly planned growth would
jeopardize these assets.

By the workshop's close, four committees had
been established (steering, land use planning,
preservation, and economic/financial) to address

the goals identified in the workshop and to foster
ongoing public participation. The land use plan-
ning committee has initiated an effort to create a
comprehensive land use plan for Red Lodge and
the surrounding area with the goal of building a
stable, diverse economy that will reduce depend-
ence on tourism and provide good jobs while not
detracting from the area's scenic beauty and qual-
ity of life.

In Livingston participants created a work plan
similar to that generated in Red Lodge. Their pri-
orities are to protect and revitalize downtown Liv-
ingston, prevent sprawling development along
US 89 between the interstate highway and Yel-
lowstone, promote clean and quiet economic ac-
tivity, avoid tourism-driven overdevelopment,
create a local land trust to form a greenway
along the Yellowstone River, and develop a com-
prehensive land use plan for the area. The group
created committees to pursue these items.

Park Service staff can encourage similar local ef-
forts in communities adjacent to their own parks.
In addition to developing a clear vision based
upon shared values, many communities have suc-
cessfully used various activities and policy op-
tions to prevent the incremental ecological and
visual degradation of the natural and built envi-
ronment. Some of these techniques, which park
managers can explain and encourage (and then
take part in) in gateway communities, are:

Compile a single, well-illustrated, and easily
accessible source of information about a
community's significant natural and cultural
assets with a realistic assessment of these as-
sets and distribute it widely throughout the
community prior to a public planning proc-
ess. This not only encourages public involve-
ment and informs local decision makers, but
can also help build pride in the community's
distinctive assets.

Analyze the costs of alternative development
patterns and scenarios. If local decisions in-
corporate sound information about not only
the visual and ecological impacts of develop-
ment but also the economic impacts of vari-
ous land use options, gateway communities
will see that preserving natural open space -
and consequently scenic values - is often a
better option than fiscally draining develop-
ment.

For example, in Alabama, the Huntsville
Land Trust compared the public cost of de-
velopment to the cost of open space acquisi-
tion in its effort to preserve Monte Sano, the
city's scenic mountainous backdrop. An inde-
pendent study concluded that the public in-
frastructure and service costs of the
proposed development would be signifi-
cantly higher than the city's acquisition and
annual maintenance costs if the land were to
be purchased for public open space. Voters
have since approved a bond referendum to
acquire and protect part of the mountain
(Smith, Propst and Abberger 1991 )•

This kind of analysis could be used to sup-
port similar preservation of natural open
space adjacent to national parks.

It is a fallacy that reducing development den-
sity will necessarily create more benign de-
velopment. Sensitive land planning and
design, clustered development with pro-
tected open space, and increased densities
in exchange for public amenities such as bi-
cycle paths, can produce development that
is aesthetically, environmentally, socially,
and fiscally superior to lower density devel-
opment.

An increasing number of communities are re-
thinking density and design controls in order
to create contemporary counterparts to the
traditional small towns. These new (or
neotraditional) designs encourage a mix of
housing types within walking distance of
places of employment, commerce, and rec-
reation. Their compact design can protect
critical scenic and natural resources. They
often differ from most recent development
by stressing the historic architectural styles
and building materials of the region in
which they are located, resulting in a visu-
ally pleasing built environment that does not
intrude on the surrounding landscape.

HELP ESTABLISH INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AND COMMUNITY COOPERATION IN
GATEWAY COMMUNITIES

Many gateway communities recognize the na-
tional interest in protecting and enhancing na-
tional parks. Neighboring landowners,

developers, and local planning and zoning offi-
cials have worked closely with park managers to
produce effective collaborative solutions and to
avoid or reduce the adverse impacts of proposed
development.

Cape Cod National Seashore

The best known cooperative mechanism yet de-
veloped involving the Park Service and neighbor-
ing communities was implemented in Cape Cod,
Massachusetts. A principal objective was to pre-
serve the area's distinctive built environment.

In the 1960s and 1970s the federal government ac-
quired approximately 5,700 acres of upland to
create the Cape Cod National Seashore. Cape
Cod marked a turning point for the national park
system. Cape Cod was the first sizable park unit
in which proximity to large numbers of people -
in this case, well over 20 million persons within a
day's drive - became an important, explicit ration-
ale. Unlike most earlier parks, it was not carved
out of lands already in the public domain. In fact,
influencing the pace and quality of private devel-
opment on the lower Cape was an important ob-
jective of those who sought federal protection.

In creating the seashore, Congress incorporated
two major innovations that have ongoing manage-
ment implications. First, existing towns were en-
closed within the park's boundaries, or
surrounding "green line." The location of a siz-
able park in the thick of settled* communities en-
tailed a closer and more complex ongoing
park-and-town relationship than was the case
with most other national parks. Second, under
the Cape Cod formula, about 600 homes within
the park's boundaries remain indefinitely in pri-
vate ownership. The federal government waived
its power to condemn these homes if local gov-
ernments passed zoning regulations compatible
with the protection of park resources. This ar-
rangement was more than a compromise with
owners; from the start, proponents were seeking
to preserve Cape Cod's picturesque homes and
villages as a living landscape.

As a result of these innovations, ownership of the
43,500 acres in the Cape Cod seashore is mixed -
the federal government owns more than half; the
commonwealth of Massachusetts, some 12,000
acres of tidal land; the towns, more than 2,500
acres; and private citizens, over 1,800 acres.

Local residents originally opposed the national
seashore proposal. However, in the 1980s, when
growth pressure increased and federal acquisition
essentially stopped, five of the six towns within
the seashore approved substantial local funding
to acquire and protect open space. Fifteen of the
sixteen communities on the cape approved $117
million in local funds to protect over 5,000 acres.
Seventy-six percent of voters on the rape ap-
proved creating the Cape Cod Commission, a re-
gional land use authority that reviews
developments of regional impact and develop-
ment within sensitive areas.

Saguaro National Monument

In Tucson, Arizona, an innovative cooperative
mechanism was developed to protect Saguaro Na-
tional Monument. The monument was estab-
lished in 1933 to preserve "the exceptional
growth thereon of various species of cacti includ-
ing the majestic saguaro cactus." Over the years,
Tucson has grown to the very boundaries of the
monument, making Saguaro a suburban wild
area. By the mid 1980s, continued piecemeal sub-
division and unplanned development of adjacent
land raised concerns about the monument's eco-
logical and scenic integrity, and the future quality
of the visitor experience.

A proposed mixed-use, resort-oriented commu-
nity on the 6,000-acre Rocking K Ranch, which
shares a five-mile boundary with the monument's
Rincon Mountain unit, embodied the diverse land
use challenges facing the monument. Realizing
that whether this particular proposal was ap-
proved or not, urban growth would transform the
area over the next 20 years, the Park Service,
county officials, World Wildlife Fund, and local
environmentalists saw the opportunity to posi-
tively influence the future character of a signifi-
cant area of land adjacent to the monument.
They worked with the developers to produce a
site plan that clusters development and restores
degraded riparian habitat throughout the ranch.
The plan will minimize impacts on the monu-
ment's visual and natural resources, preserve criti-
cal wildlife habitat, and retain the rural desert
character of the landscape.

Rocking K Development Company also joined na-
tional and local environmental organizations in
expanding Saguaro National Monument by 3,540
acres, including approximately 1,900 acres of the

most ecologically significant lands within the
Rocking K Ranch.

In addition to these measures, a new kind of
mechanism was developed to meet the need for
long-term stewardship of park resources. The Rin-
con Institute, an independent, nonprofit organiza-
tion, was created to provide environmental
education, restore and manage wildlife habitat,
perform environmental monitoring and compli-
ance, conduct scientific and policy research, and
provide technical assistance in land use matters
in the area. The Rincon Institute will educate
builders and homeowners about minimizing the
direct impacts of construction, as well as about
which building and landscaping materials and de-
signs are most appropriate in a desert environ-
ment, and which visually intrude least on the
landscape. The institute and the Rocking K Devel-
opment Company entered into an innovative
agreement to support these activities through
start-up funding and deed restrictions that guaran-
tee long-term private funding.

Help Gateway Communities Develop
Cooperative Local Action that
Recognizes and Capitalizes on
National Park Resources

The integrity of many national parks increasingly
depends upon decisions made by local officials
and landowners. At the same time, the economic
vitality of many communities depends on main-
taining an attractive natural and built environ-
ment and capitalizing on the tremendous
economic impact of nearby national parks. Un-
planned growth and poor coordination between
gateway communities and national parks nega-
tively affect both the communities and the parks.
Poorly designed and sited adjacent development
threatens the visual and natural resources of
parks; it also threatens the very quality of life that
attracts residents and visitors to gateway commu-
nities in the first place (Steffens 1993).

A community's quality of life affects not only lo-
cal well-being but also local capability to attract
new residents and economic activity. Most of the
recent urban-to-rural migration consists of city
dwellers moving to rural areas for a better quality
of life, rather than for economic reasons (Swan-
son 1984). Quality of life has also become an im-
portant factor in retaining existing businesses and

attracting new ones (McNulty et al. 1985, Buchta
1987).

Of particular relevance to gateway communities
is the fact that preserving scenic beauty may be
essential for a successful tourism economy. For
example, a poll commissioned by the President's
Commission on Americans Outdoors showed sce-
nic beauty to be the single most important crite-
rion for tourists in selecting a site for outdoor
recreation (Scenic America 1987). In fact, a study
found that visitors to the lower Wisconsin River
would be willing to pay about $18 more per visit
not to see unsightly development along the river
(Boyle and Bishop in Brabec 1990). Park Service
staff can use such facts to demonstrate to neigh-
boring communities the economic benefits of pre-
serving both the visual quality of the built
environment and the beauty of surrounding natu-
ral scenery.

The challenge facing both the National Park Serv-
ice and residents of nearby communities is to mo-
bilize cooperative action that protects park values
and capitalizes on natural values to meet commu-
nity objectives. The cornerstone of successful co-
operative planning and park protection efforts is
that they are guided by both national and local
priorities, with benefits to park resources and to
adjacent communities receiving due considera-
tion. Cooperative mechanisms must involve
strong local constituencies that recognize the eco-
nomic and other contributions national parks
make to the local quality of life.

Successful examples of this approach may pro-
vide park managers with a starting point for de-
veloping their own tailor-made mechanisms for
protecting the visual quality (and other re-
sources) of their parks.

One such example is Pittman Center, Tennessee.
Citizens of this community adjacent to both Great
Smoky Mountains National Park and the Gatlin-
burg-Pigeon Forge Tourism Complex, with the as-
sistance of the Southern Appalachian Man and
the Biosphere Program, recently undertook a
comprehensive planning effort. This led the town
to realize that residents prefer an emphasis on at-
tracting high quality development that does not
detract from the scenic natural setting of the re-
gion and protects the community's bucolic charac-
ter. Pittman Center is now providing a distinctive
alternative to Gatlinburg's amusement park

atmosphere and seasonal, minimum wage econ-
omy.

Link Park Needs With
Gateway Community Needs

Threats to the visual integrity of national parks
posed by adjacent private development can be
successfully addressed when activities balancing
protection of local values, conservation of nature,
and economic development are integrated into a
single community agenda. The key is for park
managers to help these communities to see the
link between protection of park resources and
other local needs.

Through techniques such as successful communi-
ties workshops, residents and decision makers in
gateway communities can perceive the protection
of natural resources in tangible terms such as pre-
serving scenic beauty, rural character, and recrea-
tional opportunities. Elements common to all of
these assets (scenic vistas unspoiled by harsh
clearcuts or mining activities, for example) can
create an unusual coalition among sometimes op-
posing camps. It is these linkages that can en-
hance a community's ability and commitment to
make real progress toward protecting the visual
quality of both the built and the natural environ-
ments.

official park management policies (NPS 1988) in-
cludes a section on "Park Planning in a Regional
Context," which reads:

The National Park Service will work coopera-
tively with others to anticipate, avoid, and re-
solve potential conflicts, to protect park
resources, and to address mutual interests in
the quality of life for community residents,
considering economic development as well
as resource and environmental protection.

Superintendents will work with neighboring
landowners on topics of mutual interest and
will explore ways of providing technical as-
sistance to neighboring landowners.

Superintendents will seek to encourage com-
patible adjacent land uses and to mitigate po-
tential adverse effects on park values by
actively participating in planning and regula-
tory processes of neighboring jurisdic-
tions . . .

While the Park Service should actively encourage
its staff to cooperate with gateway communities,
legislation with the following provisions would
authorize and encourage the cooperative ap-
proaches necessary to ensure that external threats
to the visual quality and other resources of the
national park system are addressed.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES
FOR THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Isolation and the seasonality of the tourist trade
can no longer protect the visual and ecological in-
tegrity of our national parks from incompatible
development of adjacent lands. The most promis-
ing opportunity to protect parks against external
threats lies in diverse cooperative mechanisms in-
volving the Park Service and park neighbors.
These partnerships are needed to provide a fo-
rum where activities can be discussed, differ-
ences thrashed out, and a consensus developed
that recognizes the needs of both parks and their
neighbors.

The National Park Service is becoming increas-
ingly involved in state and local decisions about
private land development. Park Service manage-
ment policy now explicitly realizes the NPS role
in regional planning. The current publication on

Training for Park Service Managers

An intensive training program for appropriate per-
sonnel (e.g., superintendents, management assis-
tants, and resource management specialists) in
cooperative and proactive strategies for dealing
with external threats to the integrity of park re-
sources should be established. In addition, writ-
ten and audiovisual materials explaining the need
for improved cooperation with adjacent communi-
ties (and presenting information about coopera-
tive mechanisms to implement protection
strategies) should be prepared and distributed to
park managers.

Cooperative Pilot Programs

Cooperative pilot programs should be created in
a limited number of gateway communities and na-
tional park units to serve as model projects.

These pilots should constitute a variety of re-
sources and circumstances. Criteria for selection
may include the presence of:

significant resources within the community's
jurisdiction that have a strong relationship to
the adjacent national park and that warrant
protection or particular sensitivity if they are
to be developed

a threat to park and community resources
from unmanaged growth

a demonstrated willingness among the park
management, local decision makers, and citi-
zens to protect and enhance these resources
as the community accommodates growth

the need for outside assistance to properly
protect these key local resources due to lack
of local experience, financial capability, or
consensus

approaches used, programs implemented,
and lessons learned that have applicability
and significance beyond that particular park
and community.

After completion of the pilot phase, the Park Serv-
ice may prepare a report analyzing the effective-
ness of the pilot programs, what has been
accomplished, what lessons have been learned,
and how and under what circumstances these les-
sons can best be made available throughout the
national park system.

Part of these programs may involve providing
technical support or grants for land use planning
in selected gateway communities. In addition, the
Park Service should be authorized to accept dona-
tions of lands and easements in certain adjacent
lands.

A unique opportunity to establish such pilot pro-
grams currently exists. Across the country there is
an unprecedented wave of state and local action
to protect significant resources - such as open
spaces, natural areas, and historic resources.

More than ever before, local governments, busi-
ness leaders, and local citizen groups are poten-
tial allies in efforts to protect parks. Many states
have recently enacted far-reaching statewide
growth management legislation.

This heightened level of local activity offers the
Park Service an unprecedented opportunity to
complement federal land acquisition and manage-
ment with innovative methods for protecting
lands and communities as part of integrated re-
gional strategies for conservation and sustainable
development - not just at Cape Cod and other
partnership parks, but in and around many tradi-
tional parks. For example, in states such as Ore-
gon, Maine, Florida, and New Jersey, cooperative
programs could be embodied in the state's strong
statewide planning and land use control pro-
grams.

Innovation Grants

Small catalytic grants to local nonprofit organiza-
tions or local governments should be funded to
undertake collaborative efforts to protect park re-
sources. Many communities around national
parks are facing unprecedented growth pres-
sures. In order to deal effectively with growth,
they need to inventory local natural and cultural
resources that contribute to the community's
economy, quality of life and distinctive character,
or that may contribute to park values, identify
economic opportunities generated by park visi-
tors, position the community to gain maximum
benefit from its relationship to the national park
in a manner consistent with protecting park val-
ues, and build consensus for and implement prac-
tical strategies for fulfilling the community's
needs and priorities while protecting and enhanc-
ing park values.

In a few instances, notably at Pictured Rocks and
Sleeping Bear Dunes national lakeshores, New
River Gorge National River, and Cumberland Na-
tional Seashore, Congress has authorized the
Park Service to provide grants to local regulatory
and planning agencies. To the extent that these
funds reduce the need for federal acquisition of
parcels to prevent incompatible adjacent develop-
ment, this is an excellent investment. These small
grants should be more widely available.

Intergovernmental Personnel Loans

Under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act,
agreements with appropriate local governments
and nonprofit organizations engaged in land use
planning initiatives should be authorized and

encouraged. Agreements that place Park Service
personnel in outside agencies and bring outside
experts into the parks will produce more effec-
tive resource protection strategies and build
bridges between parks and local governments.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PARK MANAGERS

Fourteenth Amendment extends this prohibition
to state and local actions; state constitutions also
prohibit the taking of private property without
just compensation. These provisions have occa-
sionally been interpreted to prohibit land use
regulations that leave the property with no eco-
nomically reasonable use.

Understand Growth Management
Techniques and Legal limitations

A wide variety of state and local planning and
regulatory strategies are available to protect park
resources. Local growth management involves a
host of public and private tools and techniques -
land use planning and regulations, land acquisi-
tion, conservation easements, and state condo-
minium and common interest ownership laws
(which allow developers to impose duties by
deed restrictions such as monthly homeowner
fees for conservation purposes). Basic familiarity
with these tools is essential if park managers
wish to participate effectively in local land use
planning.

Among the techniques that can improve the vis-
ual quality of the built environment are regula-
tions controlling the design and appearance of
new development (often requiring specific build-
ing materials, landscaping, site design, and other
features), and prohibition or restriction of devel-
opment of sensitive natural and historic areas.

Local land use decisions unavoidably raise legal
questions. Landowners who lose property value
because of a land use decision are often upset
and, at times, moved to action. Park managers
and gateway communities need to carefully con-
sider the legal implications of proposed growth
management regulations and permitting deci-
sions. This is increasingly important as develop-
ment pressures build and as a community begins
to use its regulatory authority to actively manage
growth, rather than simply to segregate poten-
tially incompatible uses through traditional zon-
ing laws.,

The most controversial legal issue raised by land
use regulation is the point at which regulation of
private land becomes an unconstitutional taking
of private property without just compensation.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
prohibits the federal government from taking pri-
vate property without just compensation, and the

Avoid Legal Difficulties

Although judicial decisions allow local govern-
ments to implement effective programs control-
ling the effects of unplanned growth, legal
challenges to programs or decisions that reduce
property values should be anticipated. Fre-
quently, however, concern about such challenges
imposes a greater limitation on effective action
than necessary. Park managers should become
well versed in applicable state and federal land
use decisions. For example, many recent deci-
sions hold that there is no constitutional protec-
tion against zoning decisions that substantially
reduce property values and there is no constitu-
tional right to transform wetlands or to place
structures within floodways.

Park personnel can substantially help local land
use decisions withstand legal challenges by pro-
viding thorough documentation and evaluation
of park resources and the adverse effects posed
by incompatible development. This documenta-
tion is a critical element of effective local involve-
ment.

The following are general suggestions park man-
agers should keep in mind when advising gate-
way communities on how to avoid successful
legal challenges to land use programs and deci-
sions:

The best defense is a good offense - the
comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan-
ning process - which includes thorough
documentation and analysis of local develop-
ment trends, the local costs and impacts of
development, and the adverse effects that a
growth management program will address -
will help immensely in preventing and with-
standing legal challenges.

Carefully document the connection between
the ends (planning objectives) and the
means (specific regulations). This will mini-
mize exposure to taking, substantive due

process, and equal protection challenges.
The impacts of a regulation on a specific
landowner may be much more tangible and
direct (and therefore more compelling to a
judge) than the communitywide benefits of
the regulation. For this reason, the public
benefits of a regulation should be clearly
and convincingly explained.

Carefully draft regulations to ensure that
they do not result in a regulatory taking by
prohibiting all economically reasonable use
of a parcel. An open space or setback re-
quirement is likely to be upheld so long as
some economically reasonable use is permit-
ted on the parcel as a whole.

Preserve an economically feasible land use
to the extent possible to help avoid taking
challenges. Where a regulation would pro-
hibit all such uses on certain property, ex-
plore the option of transferring densities to
another site.

Leave open the opportunity on the public re-
cord for a landowner to resubmit an im-
proved development proposal. If a
development application is denied, make
sure that the public record clearly shows
that the board or agency would consider a
modified or more appropriate development
proposal. Make sure that the reasons for de-
nial are supported by the development regu-
lations and the comprehensive plan.

Never use regulatory powers to facilitate,
public acquisition or to reduce the price of
land to be acquired. Carefully avoid creating
any inference that public acquisition is a fac-
tor, even a minor factor, in a regulatory deci-
sion.

designers to influence land use adjacent to parks,
the Park Service can contribute substantially to
protecting the long-term visual and ecological in-
tegrity of park resources.

Several factors - early participation, devotion of
substantial time and energy, an understanding of
how the real estate market and development
process functions, political acumen, good humor,
and persistence - are among the necessary ingre-
dients for effective participation by park manag-
ers in local land use decisions. Beyond this, the
following general principles should be kept in
mind.

Know Your Neighbor

Effective participation requires developing con-
structive working relationships with key local de-
cision makers, landowners, and citizen activists.
These relationships should be developed outside
of council chambers and public hearings to en-
courage a real understanding of the various per-
spectives.

Get Involved Early and Often

The best opportunity to influence land use deci-
sions is generally well before development pro-
posals are made public and pre-development
activities (such as acquisition of a ranch or farm
by developers, or local budgeting for utility exten-
sions) have created expectations and momentum
for an area's development. For this reason, the
most effective strategy is to work with the com-
munity long before specific development pro-
posals surface to develop a positive, popular
vision for its future, and then to devise methods
to implement this vision.

Actively Participate in the Local Land Use
Decision-Making Process

While a basic familiarity with the technical and le-
gal aspects of growth management strategies is
essential to successfully protecting a park's visual
quality, detailed technical knowledge is less im-
portant than an understanding of and active par-
ticipation in the local processes in which land
use decisions are made. By mobilizing the full ar-
ray of talent, experience, and expertise of its land-
scape architects, civil engineers, architects, and

Recognize that the Process is Political

Effective local conservation is much more a func-
tion of public concern and political will than reli-
ance upon any particular growth management
tool or technique. In the final analysis, state and
local land use decisions are made by elected offi-
cials, with political considerations foremost in
their minds. Effective participation in these deci-
sions requires an explicit acknowledgement of
the political nature of the process. The following
general rules will help improve effectiveness:

Be a credible resource for public officials.
There is no substitute for thorough prepara-
tion, so do your homework and their home-
work. Keep local officials informed about
resource protection issues and always fulfill
your commitments.

Build effective coalitions. Encourage articu-
late and energetic people who care about
the community to get involved. These allies
generally need to be much broader-based
than "friends" groups. Creatively identify
common ground with others who are not
natural allies, perhaps downtown merchant
associations. On the other hand, it may be
necessary to break ranks with traditional al-
lies on some issues. You can do so without
losing respect if you are guided by firm prin-
ciples rather than political expediency.

Clearly articulate why public officials should
protect the park and focus on the positive
contributions that the park makes to the
overall quality of local life. Appeals to non-
economic values play best to the already
converted, not to swing votes. The assertion
by business leaders that a proposal is bad
for business can wreck the best-laid conser-
vation plans. However, park protection ap-
peals based on quantifiable economic
factors are increasingly credible, as local
quality of life becomes a more important fac-
tor in business siting decisions. Although it
can require substantial effort, documenting
the extent to which a national park

contributes to the local economy (through
property values, sales tax revenues, and
jobs) can be a powerful tool.

CONCLUSIONS

The visual quality of many national parks increas-
ingly rests in the hands of state and local land
use decision makers. The key to effective partici-
pation by park managers in state and local deci-
sions affecting the built environment around
national parks is to help build local concern for
protecting park resources and to help translate
this concern into effective political action.

The Park Service must build enduring partner-
ships - two-way streets - with neighboring land-
owners and communities. These partnerships
must emphasize the benefits of protecting the vis-
ual and ecological integrity of national parks, as
well as preserving the quality of life and enhanc-
ing the economic well-being of adjacent commu-
nities. Opportunities must be created to apply the
Park Service's design and development skills out-
side traditional roles to help meet the needs of
gateway communities. In turn, by responding to
these needs, strategies to protect adjacent parks
from the impacts of external development reach
the agenda of local decision makers. Such part-
nerships are not a luxury. They are essential to
leaving the visual quality of the national pack sys-
tem unimpaired for the enjoyment of future gen-
erations.

REFERENCES

Boyle, K., and R. Bishop.

1990 Lower Wisconsin River Recreation:

Economic Impacts and Scenic Values.
University of Wisconsin Staff Paper
Series #216. As cited in: E. Brabec. The
Economics of Community Character
Preservation: An Annotated
Bibliography. Government Finance
Research Center and Scenic America,
Washington, DC.

T:Jryson, B.

1989 The Lost Continent. Harper Collins, New
York.

Buchta, T.K.

1987 Will We Live in Accidental Cities or

Successful Communities? Conservation
Foundation Letter 6:1-3,5-8.

The Conservation Foundation

1 985 National Parks for a New Generation.
The Conservation Foundation,
Washington, DC.

Gregory, G.

1985 State of the Parks 1980: Problems and
Plans. As cited in: The Conservation
Foundation. National Parks for a New
Generation. The Conservation
Foundation, Washington, DC.

McNulty, R.H., D. Jacobson, and L.R. Penne
1 985 The Econom ics of A men ity: Commun ity
Futures and Quality of Life. Partners for
Liveable Places, Washington, DC.

1988 National Park Service Management
Policies. Washington, DC.

National Parks and Conservation Association

1989 Investing in Park Futures. Washington,
DC.

Power, T.M.

1980 The Economic Value of the Quality of
Life. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Propst, L.

1989 Report of the Subcommittee on Federal
Land Use Law for 1990-91. Urban
Lawyer 21:818.

The Resources Agency of California

1991 Annual Report. Sacramento, CA.

Scenic America

1987 Fact Sheet: Sign Control and Economic
Development. Sign Control News
(November-December) .

Smith, R., L. Propst, and W. Abberger
1991 Local Land Acquisition for

Conservation: Trends and Facts to
Consider. World Wildlife Fund,
Washington, DC.

Steffens, R.

1993 Not Just Another Roadside Attraction.

National Parks (January/February):26-31 ■

Swanson, L.L.

1984 Moving to the Country in Search of a
Better Life. Rural Development
Perspectives 1(1): 14-29.

National Park Service

1992 National Parks for the 21st Century -
The Vail Agenda. Report and
Recommendations to the Director of the
National Park Service, from the Steering
Committee of the 75th Anniversary
Symposium. Washington, DC.

ECTION n

Case Studies

Park Development: The Search for Visual Quality and Ecological
Symbiosis, Ebey's Landing and Fort Clatsop

Geoff Swan

Sandy Hook, Gateway National Recreation Area

John Teichert

The Role of Design Guidelines in Maintaining Visual Quality
Architectural and Road Character Guidelines: Sequoia and
Kings Canyon National Parks

Marvin Wall

Everglades National Park: Visual Design Guidelines Development

John C. Hall

mge

■

>age

\age

ARK DEVELOPMENT: THE SEARCH FOR VISUAL
QUALITY AND ECOLOGICAL SYMBIOSIS,
EBEY'S LANDING AND FORT CLATSOP

Geoff Swan

VISUAL COMPATIBILITY

In the management of national parks, many activi-
ties have the potential to complement or ad-
versely affect the visual quality of the park
landscape. In too many instances, building and
landscape details have not been coordinated, re-
sulting in visually incompatible design solutions.
During the spring of 1987 the Pacific Northwest
Regional Office initiated a thrust to enhance the
visual quality of the parks in this region. This
thrust was intended as a direct response to for-
mer Director William Penn Mott, Jr.'s 12-Point
Plan to protect and enhance the heritage of the
National Park Service.

The goal is to establish a visual theme or charac-
ter for each park, identify'desired standards, and
then implement and maintain those standards. An
initial assessment of the visual quality of existing
park development provides baseline information,
from which a palette of design details and a main-
tenance guideline for needed changes and future
development can be developed. Two visual com-
patibility guidelines (VCG) have been completed
that meet the first part of this goal. A second step
has been to develop a visual quality component
for the region's operations evaluations program
as another way of building baseline visual quality
data and to identify where improvements should
be made. This has been accomplished success-
fully in five operations evaluations to date. Our
other current effort consists of developing objec-
tive standards for visual quality of park landscape
components that can be integrated into the Main-
tenance Management System (MMS). Hopefully,
the information developed may be useful serv-
icewide in enhancing the visual quality of our
parks.

Park development is a resource. Since the domi-
nant sensory mode of human perception is vis-
ual, the visual "pattern of the place" is a
significant element in enhancing or frustrating

visitor experience. Design and condition of park
facilities is indicative of how successfully parks
are managed and how the National Park Service
defines quality. At its best, successful integration
of park development with landscape form, using
native materials, textures, and colors, and respect-
ing culturally significant resources, provides a spe-
cial human setting symbiotic with the values of
the park. At its worst, this relationship detracts
from the entire national park experience, and re-
duces repeat visits to the national parks. Park fa-
cilities must be of simple design, highest quality,
durable, energy efficient, and easy and cost-effec-
tive to maintain.

An important consideration must be the cumula-
tive impact of developments upon park re-
sources, both ecologically and visually. Though
the national park system must provide a full spec-
trum of facilities and opportunities for all visitors,
each individual park or for each developed area
within large parks cannot serve all visitors. This
will open up new options to remove develop-
ments from sensitive resource areas, to scale
back or eliminate existing facilities, to develop al-
ternate types of low visual and ecological impact
facilities, and to support minimal rather than full
service new development. We must define limits
of acceptable change for each environment, and
focus our efforts on preserving the heritage for
which we serve as caretakers within these limits.
The overriding goal should be to accommodate
only those visitor and management facilities
within our parks that are essential to providing
for uses deemed appropriate within the defined
limits of acceptable change. We must seek a sym-
biosis between park facilities and nature based
on a careful study of the physical, ecological, cul-
tural and even spiritual qualities of the locale. Fa-
cilities should reflect a thorough understanding
of a site's topography, culture, climate, light, col-
ors, and indigenous materials, thereby enhancing
the visual and ecological fit with the landscape.

VISUAL COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES

Visual Compatibility Guidelines (VCG) were cre-
ated to serve as a source for detail design deci-
sions made on a daily basis in national parks.
Park management design decisions have the po-
tential to complement or adversely affect the vis-
ual quality of the landscape. The goal of the
guideline program is to establish design sugges-
tions that complement and reflect the unique cul-
tural and natural landscape character of each
park. The relationship between the park's land-
scape character and the development associated
with support and service functions in a park is a
critical one. The support and service develop-
ment can read as a cohesive unit and blend well
without detracting from the landscape character.
Visual compatibility guidelines help define what
role colors, materials, patterns, textures and place-
ment of detail elements can have in the creation
of a unified landscape. Ultimately, they will be de-
veloped for each park; they are the joint responsi-
bility of park and regional office staff.

These guidelines are plans in a very workable
sense. The ability to use them for simple design
decisions allows each area to make daily choices
with maximum freedom and with the endorse-
ment and support of the regional office. For ex-
ample, where to locate a trash can, the color the
can is painted, and the relationship of the can to
adjacent benches, interpretive signs, trailheads,
and other landscape details are choices made as
a reaction to an immediate need. Although loca-
tion of a trash can may seem trivial in the
scheme of maintenance operations, it shows the
more typical process - reaction. Visual compatibil-
ity guidelines will facilitate decisions for these
short-term needs by providing detail suggestions
that ensure the overall cohesive appearance of
the park. Design components addressed in the
visual compatibility guidelines might include:

■ architectural theme

■ building mass, height, and outline (proportion,
symmetry, and rhythm)

■ orientation of buildings to slope and associ-
ated parking

■ road surfaces and edge detailing (eg. curbs,
wheel stops, etc.)

■ entries, walkway systems, and surfaces

■ groundform

■ enclosures (walls, fencing)

■ lighting

■ site furniture (picnic tables, benches, drinking
fountains, trash containers, etc.)

■ color schemes

■ construction materials and weathering charac-
teristics

■ vegetation management

■ signs

Not all of these components will be addressed in
each guideline, and those not covered initially
can be added as the need arises.

These guidelines are not intended as a substitute
for comprehensive design work and consultation
with landscape architects, architects, and engi-
neers. They can, however, serve as a framework
for comprehensive planning and provide a base
of knowledge and ideas that will allow park staff
and designers to make design and maintenance
decisions for each park in a consistent manner
over time. Two visual compatibility guidelines
have been completed by Pacific Northwest Re-
gional Office staff to date - for Ebey's Landing
National Historical Reserve and Fort Clatsop Na-
tional Memorial. Olympic National Park visual
themes have also been completed. Each of these
guidelines differs in format from the others, re-
flecting the uniqueness of that park's cultural, his-
torical, and natural context.

EBEY'S LANDING VISUAL

coMPATromrY guideline

The Ebey's Landing Visual Compatibility Guide-
line was the prototype park document. The park
was virtually undeveloped at the time it was pre-
pared. The objective of the visual compatibility
guideline for Ebey's Landing was to create de-
tailed design alternatives and recommendations
that reflect the unique cultural and natural integ-
rity of the reserve. Initially managed by the Na-
tional Park Service, management of the reserve
has been turned over to a county land trust
board. Maintenance assistance has been provided

by North Cascades staff. The Park Service contin-
ues to provide technical assistance and oversight
following the transition. The Ebey's Landing Vis-
ual Compatibility Guideline was recognized as
very important in providing continuity between
National Park Service and Land Trust Board man-
agement efforts.

The uniqueness of Ebey's Landing lies in the
gradual evolution of its landscape, which reflects
both community growth and historic land use pat-
terns. Remnants of the past are so closely laced
into the present landscape fabric that their mean-
ing and value permeates the whole feeling of the
place. The landscape unfolds consisting of prai-
ries, outlined by weathered rail fences and rich
green hedgerows. Dense woodlands accent hill-
tops and crop fields. There is a sense of water
throughout the landscape, with views to Puget
Sound at nearly every site. Along the island
bluffs, sweeping views of coastline are revealed
with driftwood-strewn beaches below and distant
views of the snowcapped Olympic and Cascade
mountain ranges. Design themes selected for
Ebey's Landing reflect the rural texture and
rhythm, and the influence of water on the island.

Development of the visual compatibility guide-
line began by assessing the visual character of
the existing landscape. Reading the Cultural
Landscape by Cathy Gilbert (NPS 1985) provided
the framework for the identification of distinct
landscape character areas. Three scales were ana-
lyzed: (1) the overall contextual setting and land-
scape organization of the reserve as a whole, (2)
features of the built environment, including build-
ing clusters, farm complexes, fences, hedgerows
and their relationship to one another, and (3) the
landscape in detail, including pathways, building
materials, and remnants of historic features.

Major landforms, primary circulation networks
and broad land use patterns are important be-
cause while individual houses, crops, and prop-
erty lines may change frequently, large settlement
patterns tend to remain for generations and re-
flect open, arable lands into which development
was channeled by restricting dense woodlands
and rocky ridges. Spatial characteristics such as
dominant horizontal and vertical elements, scale,
types of vegetation, distance to viewer, edges of
landform, landcover and structures, and back-
drop are visual qualities analyzed at the interme-
diate scale to establish the degree of continuity of
lines and patterns. Analysis of materials, textures,

colors, and degree of weathering provide a pal-
ette for new design decisions. Analysis of the sec-
ond and third scales proved most significant to
our effort, leading to detail design recommenda-
tions for signs, benches, fencing, bollards, bike
racks, bumper stops, trash receptacles, and a
viewing platform.

The Ebey's Landing Visual Compatibility Guide-
line provided guidelines for low-key new devel-
opment at a series of overlooks and waysides
that until then were undeveloped. A series of de-
tailed sketches are an integral part of the docu-
ment, providing sufficient information for park
maintenance personnel to construct desired facili-
ties. Sufficient analysis and detail is also pre-
sented to permit staff to assess details not
originally contemplated and propose designs that
would be visually compatible.

An alternate bench design and new trail crossings
were developed subsequent to completion of the
park's visual compatibility guideline. A brief con-
sultation with regional landscape architects was
sufficient to approve construction and ensure that
visual continuity was maintained. The result has
been extremely successful. For Ebey's Landing,
the visual compatibility guideline has proved to
be a useful tool for management and mainte-
nance staff.

-Pcpumo &\oyc-Le o*(y\zcx-

pn&n cat

ere poj%
kcwt at twc pifmm

Y&etK£> k'40 THAT
£AN P5"l/5H5)

Figure 1: Sketch of Ebey's Landing NHR bike rack
employing traditional island materials and weathered finish .

Figure 2. The round
pickets motif of the
Fort Clatsop gate is
used to support the
park entrance sign.
(Photograph by
Engineering/Design &
Maintenance
Division, Pacific
Northwest Region,
National Park Service)

*■ -—-^

■^ Manorial JJU ▼

Wtk W^SS^m

^^^■M

|ran<Mns ■». «*i

':"'.:•'.;

Figure 3- Bench of
simple design, along
wood chip trail, uses
local materials and
blends into the
landscape at Fort
Clatsop. (Photograph
by Engineering/Design
& Maintenance
Division, Pacific
Northwest Region,
National Park Service)

Is. jfin

-<-

l£ *

*vi

' /^uc!

■<v« *^3^»^^^r-i

* < -

^BfvB4J^^I^l

f?r

FORT CLATSOP VISUAL
COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINE

The second visual compatibility guideline com-
pleted in the Pacific Northwest Region was for
Fort Clatsop, a small and well-developed park
with a high degree of visual unity and integrity.
The objectives for this guideline were to describe
in some detail the existing visual qualities and de-
tails that should be retained over time and to sug-
gest minimal changes to allow continued
evolution of the developed landscape in ways
sympathetic to the integrity of the landscape. Rec-
ommendations of the Fort Clatsop Visual Com-
patibility Guideline were tied to the Historic
Landscape Management Plan.

Visual character was determined by an analysis
of the existing landscape at several scales. Visual
character is described as a combination of land-
scape components, their visual interrelationship,
and the quality of the visual landscape (e.g. how

memorable, striking, or distinctive components
are the degree of visual integrity between natural
and built features and the unity, visual coher-
ence, and compositional harmony of the land-
scape).

Unlike Ebey's Landing, major changes occurred
in the landscape of the Fort Clatsop area during
the past 130 years. The original fort was burned
by a settler, the site was logged and timber
milled at the canoe landing, and a small orchard
was planted. Natural regrowth and a planned
planting schedule have since restored much of
the forest cover. The long-term objective is to re-
turn site vegetation to its appearance at the time
of the Lewis & Clark winter camp. Visual charac-
teristics at the intermediate scale are simplified
due to the enclosure of forest edges. Two distinct
zones are present, the entry and visitor center
and the replica fort, spring, and canoe landing
area. Critical to the visual quality of the park is
the interface between these zones. Most

important at Fort Clatsop are the details and how
those in one zone complement those in the
other. Consistency of forest ceiling, understory,
and edge plantings provide visual unity. The
round pickets motif of the fort gate is used for en-
trance sign mounting posts, for wayside exhibit
supports to frame entrance gates, and as sign-
posts. Other site details are made from weath-
ered split boards and logs along wood chip trails.
Key recommendations include use of historic de-
sign precedents for key interpretive site details, in-
cluding naturally weathered rough wood and
rock. The informal, rustic design approach used
for trail surfaces and ground covers is continued.
Design features analogous to historic or rustic
themes, including stump seats and heavy split
board benches, split rail fencing, and weathered
colors are used. Visual separation of the entry
and visitor center area from the replica fort and a
visual transition along the pathway between
these areas are maintained.

The Fort Clatsop maintenance staff plans to use
the recommendations developed in the park's
guidelines to justify requests for repair and reha-
bilitation funds to upgrade visual quality. The de-
sign guidelines provided will ensure continuity of
the already high quality visual character over the
years.

OPERATIONS EVALUATIONS

A second major step toward enhancing the visual
quality of our parks has been to develop a visual
quality component for the region's operations
evaluations program. The intent of the program
is to identify those operations handled especially
well and that may serve as a model for other
parks and to note particular deficiencies that can
be corrected within a year.

The visual quality component of operations evalu-
ations has been assigned to a landscape architect
who assesses the existing visual character of pat-
terns and relationships among landscape ele-
ments and the degree to which details
complement and reflect the unique cultural and
natural landscape character of each park. Individ-
ual elements assessed to date have included park-
wide goals for improvement of the park
landscape, park architectural theme or image
statement, park entrances & entrance signs, road-
side management, cultural resource protection,

signs, trails and walkways, picnic areas, camp-
grounds, developed area landscaping, aesthetic
standards in the concessions management plan,
concessioner facilities, maintenance standards, a
critical element on visual quality accountability in
performance standards, and training. Each ele-
ment is described in terms of findings and recom-
mendations, the official responsible for
completion of the task, and a target completion
date. A program summary report is presented ver-
bally at the operations evaluations closeout.

Because virtually no baseline visual quality data
exists for the national parks, the initial visual qual-
ity assessments have been quite detailed and
have noted deficiencies that will require several
years to correct. Collecting baseline visual quality
data should be the focus of a distinct mainte-
nance program to help establish priorities for fu-
ture projects. Follow-up would include joint
development of associated maintenance stand-
ards with park staff. The visual quality assess-
ment would then more appropriately be used to
identify how well each park is addressing the
identified short- and long-term deficiencies.

As a follow-up to integrating visual quality into
the operations evaluation program, a visual qual-
ity element has been added to each superinten-
dent's annual performance standards, which states

The park has developed and implemented
design themes and guidelines in accordance
with current NPS Management Policies.

A specific standard still should be developed for
park chiefs of maintenance, maintenance fore-
men, and other park professionals in recognition
of their key responsibilities for visual quality in
the national parks. Critical elements for their per-
formance standards might include:

Park facilities are fully integrated into the
landscape and cause minimal impact; they
do not compete with or dominate park fea-
tures and maintain continuity of the park im-
age over time; maintenance of these facilities
respects the design intent.

Visitor, concessioner, and management facili-
ties reflect park design themes and are
ecologically sympathetic, including siting
considerations and maintenance guidelines.

Maintenance of facilities respects their natu-
ral and cultural context, and uses native ma-
terials, traditional forms, colors, and details.

With a performance standard in place, all key
park staff would be accountable for the visual
quality of our parks.

VISUAL QUALITY PROGRAM
COMPONENT STANDARDS

Work is nearing completion on the development
of draft visual quality component standards in
park landscapes. The standards in their present
form have been developed using numerous refer-
ences, discussions with professionals, and per-
sonal experiences. The standards are arranged by
the work activity codes used in the NPS mainte-
nance management system (MMS), but have been
expanded significantly beyond those included in
MMS planning guidelines. The draft standards
generally begin with an overall design goal or ob-
jective and siting guidelines. Next come detailed
characteristics, desired relationship to associated
elements, visual compatibility objectives, and
maintenance standards. A copy of the draft stand-
ards will be distributed widely for review before
they are finalized. Once completed, the standards
for visual quality components will be applied to
strengthen the Pacific Northwest Region's opera-
tions evaluation program. Hopefully the informa-
tion and procedures developed may be of
assistance servicewide in enhancing the visual
and ecological fit of park development into the
landscape.

DRAFT VISUAL QUALITY PROGRAM
COMPONENT STANDARDS

1. General. Trail structures harmonize with
the park landscape and are built from native
materials. Structures on historic walks and
trails reflect and complement historic design
elements. Campsites and the immediate land-
scape around trail shelters and huts are gen-
erally level. Soils show little impact from trail
users. Attractive topographic features and/or
vegetation are integrated into trail sites.

2. Trail bridges. Trail bridges are solid and
used only where relocation of trails is im-
practical. Materials used are native to the
area and are predominant near bridge sites.
Handrails on bridges match the visual charac-
ter of the bridge. For handicapped accessi-
ble trails, the transitions between trails and
bridges are smooth. No evidence remains of
replaced bridges or unused materials for trail
bridge repairs.

3. Water bars. Water bars installed to collect
and direct surface runoff away from trails
are solidly placed and installed at a 30° to
45° angle across trails with minimal evi-
dence of surface erosion.

4. Boardwalks. Boardwalks (and puncheon)
are level from side-to-side and have no miss-
ing, broken, warped, cupped, or loose
boards; nails are tight. Replacement boards
match the original in visual character. Board-
walk surfaces generally are free from moss.
Board patterns and joints are visually pleas-
ing. Handrails (if used) match the visual char-
acter of boardwalks, and are free from splits
and splinters.

5. Retaining walls. Stone drywall, native log,
or untreated timber retaining walls are of a
consistent visual character and show no evi-
dence of failure (bulging sections, eroded
bases, loose or missing stones, or rotting tim-
bers, etc.). Stone walls are skillfully blended
into the rock outcrops that they surmount or
abut so that the transition is indistinct. Na-
tive stone is used to match adjoining out-
crops, and stone is not imported into areas
where there is no native stone.

6. Safety railings. Trail safety railings are lim-
ited to trails with unavoidably sharp grades
and that are subject to seasonal environ-
mental hazards. Railings should reflect the
predominant horizontal or vertical lines in
the landscape characteristic of the trail. Mate-
rials used should complement those native
to the area in scale, finish, and color.

REFERENCES

Giamberdine, R. and Goodrich, T.

1990 Road Character Guidelines, Sequoia &
Kings Canyon National Parks, National
Park Service, Denver Service Center, U.S.
Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.

Good, A.H.

1938 Park and Recreation Structures, Part I -
Administrative and Basic Service
Facilities; Part II - Recreational and
Cultural Facilities; and Part III -
Overnight and Organized Camp
Facilities. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.

National Park Service

1990 Visual Compatibility Guidelines for Fort
Clatsop National Memorial. Pacific
Northwest Region, Seattle, WA.

1989 Architectural Character Guidelines,

Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Park.
Esherick Homsey Dodge and Davis,
Architects; Nishita and Carter,
Landscape Architects; Corson Design;
U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.

1987 Visual Compatibility Guidelines for
Ebey's Landing National Historical
Reserve. Pacific Northwest Region.
Seattle, WA.

1964 National Parkways Handbook, U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Washington, DC.

Swan, G.

1993 Visual Quality Program Component
Standards, (Draft). National Park Serv-
ice, Pacific Northwest Region, Seattle,
WA.

Teichert, EJ.

1989 Olympic National Park Visual Themes.
National Park Service, Olympic National
Park, WA.

ANDY HOOK, GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION
AREA

John Teicbert

BACKGROUND

Sandy Hook National Recreation Area is located
at the northeast corner of New Jersey. It is a nar-
row spit of land that juts out into the greater New
York harbor area and forms a part of the Gate-
way National Recreation Area serving the metro-
politan New York City area. Most of the Sandy
Hook spit contains a variety of grasslands and
woodlands with surrounding salt and freshwater
marshes.

People visit Sandy Hook to enjoy the natural
grasslands, to view the historic areas of Fort Han-
cock, and to use the saltwater beaches. Most of
the area is forested with coastal vegetation and of-
fers a contrast to the intense urbanization sur-
rounding it. The military used most of the Sandy
Hook area from the Revolutionary War to the late
1960s. An active Coast Guard station exists today
at the northeastern end of the spit.

Serving the visitors to Sandy Hook are a variety
of facilities staffed by National Park Service and
concession personnel. They include comfort sta-
tions, seasonal beach rental kiosks, beach centers
providing a variety of food and concession serv-
ices, first aid and lifeguard stations, seasonal
beach kiosks, comfort stations, and historic struc-
tures from past Army and Coast Guard programs.
Most of the facilities are old, inconsistent in de-
sign, and unable to provide adequate services to
the many visitors, especially during the heavy use
summer months.

Plans to upgrade the visitor facilities were pro-
grammed to begin in 1990 by both the National
Park Service and by the concessioner. The super-
intendent of Sandy Hook was concerned that dif-
ferent approaches would be used in upgrading
all the various beach facilities. He felt that the
new and upgraded facilities should be visually
consistent and be compatible with the historic
and natural characteristics of the area. He re-

Figure 1. Spermaceti Lifesaving Station, an important

architectural resource for identifying elements of the design

guidelines for Sandy Hook in Gateway.

quested the help of the Denver Service Center in
developing criteria and standards that would
guide the future designs of the facilities at Sandy
Hook.

DEVELOPING THE GUIDEUNES

After initial discussions with Denver Service Cen-
ter and park personnel, the initial criteria and
scope of the project were established. The goal
was to develop a general architectural theme for
the beach facilities at Sandy Hook, including
those existing and programmed for the future.
This theme guideline was to include general ar-
chitectural concepts, building forms and profiles,
appropriate materials, and colors and recommen-
dations on siting of facilities. The guidelines were
to be based on the latest draft of the develop-
ment concept plan for Sandy Hook and the land-
scape analysis study completed earlier. The final
product would be used by the designers of the
specific facilities, by NPS personnel, or by archi-
tectural and engineering A/E firms hired by the
concessioner.

The process for development of the guidelines in-
volved several site visits during the winter and
summer seasons. Reviews of draft documents
were conducted by the park and the Denver Serv-
ice Center. Annotated freehand drawings were
completed, including building plans and eleva-

Figure 2: Study sketches of "Hook" towers represent the form and shingle style of the coastal area, forms that are
significant in relationship to the U.S. Life Saving Service facilities, the predecessor to the U.S. Coast Guard.
(Sketch by John Teichert, National Park Service, Olympic National Park)

Figure 3: Proposed Area "E" Beach Center design, drawing on vernacular forms and materials.
(Illustration by Bruce Soehngen, DHM, Inc.)

tions and initial site plans for the various areas.
Surveys and sketches were completed of facilities
in the park and in surrounding communities.

The Sandy Hook area is rich in architectural
styles, materials, and colors. Many fine shingle-
style homes were constructed along the coast of
New Jersey for beach homes and resorts. Materi-
als were sympathetic to the harsh ocean climates.
Building forms were functional and decorative.
Colors and finishes were used for emphasis as
well as for functional purposes. Historical styles

were evident in the facilities of private owners, re-
sorts, and military facilities. The most evident ar-
chitectural piece in the beach areas of Sandy
Hook was the historic Spermaceti Lifesaving Sta-
tion. This three-story, wood-shingle structure was
sited along the main entry road to the beach and
was used by the park for seasonal interpretation.
The structure has long sweeping roofs, wood
shingle detailing, and a prominent lookout tower.
Its design was one of the several standard de-
signs used by the lifesaving service for the many
coastal stations along the eastern seaboard.

The Sandy Hook Guidelines include graphic and
written recommendations for the future park
beach facilities. The architectural theme is: "Sim-
ple horizontal building forms, reflective of the
windblown dunes and vegetation . . . wood-shin-
gle detailing and construction with 'hook' tower
emphasis reflective of the historic construction of
the local area beach facilities." Sections on his-
tory, buildings, materials, colors, and siting are in-
cluded. Additionally, specific visual objectives
and recommendations on the building types are
presented as well as detailed guidelines for such
objects as signs and site furnishings.

As part of the guidelines, ideas are provided to
enhance the visual quality of all visitor use areas
by reducing visual clutter. Specific analyses of all
the visitor use facilities at Sandy Hook are in-
cluded. Recommendations for each area are in
graphic form with supporting written comments.
Included are sketches for various facilities and
sketches for siting of the beach facilities and for
the adjacent historic Fort Hancock site. Additional
supporting guidelines provided are the Conces-
sion Facility Guideline for New Buildings and the
Instruction for Submission of Proposed Altera-
tion/Renovations of Concession Facilities.

Each section is meant to complement the other.
Material includes general architectural theme
guidelines for the entire park area as well as spe-
cific recommendations on site specific problems.
The intent is to provide guidelines that are useful
for future designers without restricting aesthetic
creativity. By using a single guideline, the future
facilities at Sandy Hook will be consistent in
style, form, color, and materials. It will be reflec-
tive of the historical and climatic influences of
the surrounding areas.

Initial design work has focused on the beach ar-
eas at the southern end of the park which in-

clude several seasonal shelters and restrooms. De-
signs were developed using a charette method,
which includes intensified sessions on-site with
the participation of the architects and regional
and park personnel. These sessions produced rec-
ommended design concepts that were verified
against the established Sandy Hook visual guide-
lines. Building forms, profiles, materials, colors,
and general architectural themes were examined.
Siting recommendations contained in the guide-
lines were especially valuable in developing alter-
natives which are sympathetic to the natural
characteristics of the park.

The success of the overall process is a direct re-
sult of a successful team effort and the creative
use of the general design process. The ideas and
desire for sympathetic and consistent design
formed the backbone of proposals that will pro-
vide quality facilities for the visitor. The concept
of the design charette was the basis of the team
effort. Time for reviews was reduced substan-
tially. The A/E firm produced final design solu-
tions with skill and creativity.

The lesson learned from the Sandy Hook experi-
ence is that the design process must start early
with the development of design theme guide-
lines. Architectural and visual objectives must
form part of these guidelines. The themes must
be specific in content and responsive to historic
precedents and existing environmental influ-
ences. They must also be general enough to pre-
vent stifling the creative design process.
Openness among those on the team, from the su-
perintendent to the final designer, will result in
quality National Park Service facilities for visitor
use and enjoyment.

Ihe role of design guidelines in maintaining
visual quality architectural and road
character guidelines: sequoia and kings
canyon national parks

Marvin Wall

PLANNING FOR CHANGE

In Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, ma-
jor new construction will replace much of the ex-
isting development during the next 20 years,
leading to the most thorough facility change ever
to occur in a major national park. The primary
factor in making these necessary changes is envi-
ronmental. The location of past developments is
producing long-term irreversible damage to the
giant sequoias. The importance of the structures
is relatively minor when compared to the impor-
tance of the trees. The biggest single project in
this process will be the removal of numerous
buildings from the giant forest. Replacement will
be in a less fragile new area, Wuksachi Village
(formerly called Clover Creek), some six miles
away.

This project is concerned with cultural values.
The developed areas in question represent the
first developed and still most heavily used por-
tions of the two parks. They contain what many
visitors perceive to be the human heart of the
parks. The overall project goal is replacement of
these old facilities without loss of continuity with

a century of human heritage and park identity.
The project approach was to document the char-
acter that evolved for these two parks in the past
and to establish continuity with that character
through design guidelines, thereby easing the
transition from old developed areas to the new
by reinforcing park identity through consistency
of design.

The forward to the architectural guidelines ad-
dresses the attempt to define an architecture ap-
propriate for new development based on a
number of premises.

National parks should have built environments
that contribute to the understanding that parks
are special places that require special attitudes
and behaviors on the part of visitors.

National parks should be developed in such a
way that a consistent architectural character is
present throughout the developed areas of the
park.

New development in older national parks should
be designed in a way that establishes a continuity

Figure 1: Rustic design
cabin at Giant Forest.
(Photograph by
Marvin Wall,
National Park Service,
Denver Service Center)

with the most successful design elements of past
park projects.

Ultimately, park architecture has a significant im-
pact on how visitors perceive and use the park.
At its best, good architecture provides a special
human setting in which the values of the park
are clarified and reinforced. At its worst, it weak-
ens and degrades the entire park experience, de-
tracts from the values that allow a park to survive
and prosper and, thus, complicates the everyday
management of the park.

Consistent design elements and details that reflect
the unique character of the park should apply to
road character as well as to buildings. In the
early years of park development these design
principles were expressed by the Park Service in
the form of rustic design. To blend in with the en-
vironment, roads were designed to lie gently on
the land, following contours to avoid large cuts
and fills. Walls, curbs, culverts, and other support
structures were made from natural materials. As a
result, park roads had a distinctive different char-
acter from roads outside the parks. These roads
serve a distinctly different purpose from most
other roads and highways, and they should be as
special as the parks that surround them.

As a result of the concern for continuity, a series
of documents to guide the future design charac-
ter of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks
developments was produced. This series includes
the Inventory of Significant Structures, Architec-
tural Character Guidelines, and the Road Charac-
ter Guidelines.

Much of the success of the Sequoia and Kings
Canyon guidelines can be attributed to the meth-
odology used for their development. The process
was unusual. While there are existing guidelines
for historic districts, these guidelines deal with
new construction in developed areas of natural
parks where the landscape is not urban and
where the natural landscape is the most valuable
resource.

A list of significant buildings was requested and
identification of dominant characteristics and uni-
fying elements were identified for use as a basis
for the architectural character guidelines. This por-
tion of the guideline, the inventory of significant
structures, provided the basis for the completion
of the actual guidelines. The production of the

guidelines was contracted to an architecture and
engineering firm.

An outline of the task directive (scope of work)
for the architectural character guidelines follows.

ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER GUIDELINES
GOALS (as stated in the task directive)

"Conserve the scenery and the natural and his-
toric objects and the wildlife therein ..." This is
the overall responsibility from the 1916 legisla-
tion that established the national park system.

Construction should be "devoted always to the
harmonizing of . . . improvement with the land-
scape" was Stephen T. Mather's 1918 dictum.

Stated in other ways, the goals include:

■ buildings should be an accessory to nature

■ design should be nonintrusive

■ simplicity and restraint should be
employed

■ past building traditions and practices
should be respected

■ indigenous materials should be used in
proper scale and should weather well

■ natural site character should be retained

■ the ability of the site to absorb
modifications should be considered

■ the design of individual structures should
coordinate with that of the site plan as a
whole

■ the perceptual structure should be
congruent with actual use (visual legibility)

■ color, scale, location, and silhouette
should aid assimilation

OBJECTIVES/PURPOSE (as stated in the task
directive)

1. Develop design guidelines to provide a
framework for deciding appropriate

architectural character of new buildings and
alterations - a checklist to measure architec-
tural compatibility with historic buildings or
structures in the park/district. The guidelines
shall cover the categories of new construc-
tion and the rehabilitation and maintenance
of existing buildings. (Rehabilitation and
maintenance of buildings presently on or eli-
gible for the national register are covered by
existing NPS policy (NPS-28) and regulations
of the National Historic Preservation Act.)

2. Through analysis of the existing buildings
that define the park/district architectural
character, provide guidelines that clarify and
systematize standards of appropriateness by
translating into text and graphics the princi-
ples and relationships these buildings repre-
sent.

3. Provide design guidelines to perform these
functions:

■ identify the most important design
review characteristics in the
park/district

■ provide reviewer with minimum
standards for making decisions

■ establish a system for uniform
evaluation of design submittals

■ promote consistency in design and
design decisions

■ establish objective criteria for
reviewer

■ provide information about
rehabilitation and maintenance
techniques that respect the existing
architectural fabric

■ speed the process of routine
alterations

■ save time and money for reworked
design

■ increase public awareness of the
architectural character of the
park/district and the elements that
contribute to it

METHODOLOGY/SCOPE (as stated in the task
directive)

The task directive identified the work to be ac-
complished and who was responsible - the Na-
tional Park Service or the A/E consultant:

Provide a list of significant buildings and
building groups or districts to be used as a
basis for the guidelines. (NPS - requires
knowledge of park/district architectural his-
tory and familiarity with significant build-
ings.)

Examine the buildings in the park/district
and identify: (NPS)

dominant characteristics

unifying elements

sub-areas with different qualities

and uses
what kinds of changes taking place

Decide the level of general or specific archi-
tectural design detail most appropriate for
developing the guidelines for the park/dis-
trict. (NPS and A/E professional consultant)

Examine existing guidelines.

Through design analysis, evaluate identified
dominant characteristics and unifying ele-
ments to develop guidelines for future con-
struction. (Requires design analysis to relate
modern technology, materials, and design
philosophy to older buildings. It requires un-
derstanding these aspects of older construc-
tion and the ability to integrate them with
the functional and structural requirements of
new construction.) (A/E professional consult-
ant)

While protecting recognized values, develop
guidelines allowing sufficient flexibility to ac-
commodate changing times and circum-
stances. Provide criteria that avoid absolutes,
that recommend or discourage rather than re-
quire or forbid. Provide guidelines that are
aids to decision making rather than formu-
las. (See The Secretary of the Interior's Stand-
ards for Historic Preservation Projects.) (A/E
professional consultant)

Figures 2-3: Structures
designed in
accordance with the
architectural
guidelines: the fire
station at Wuksachi
Village, and an
employee residence in
the village.
(Photographs by
Randy Fong, National
Park Service, Denver
Service Center)

Guidelines shall focus attention on those spe-
cial visual and spatial qualities historically es-
tablished within the park/district derived
from building heights, scale, orientation,
spacing and site coverage of buildings, fa-
cade proportions and window patterns, size,
shape and projections of entrances and
porch projections, materials, textures, color,
architectural details, roof forms, horizontal,
vertical, or nondirectional emphasis, walls,
fences and service yards, and planting,
signs, and lighting.

Guidelines shall address accessibility require-
ments (Uniform Federal Accessibility Stand-
ards).

Guidelines shall address federal and state en-
ergy conservation requirements as these re-
quirements relate to the building appearance.

In developing the format for the architec-
tural character guidelines, consideration shall
be given to developing a format applicable
to specific sites, districtwide, parkwide, or
systemwide.

The architectural/roads character guidelines are
actively serving their purpose in the park. Con-
struction is completed on several residences, a
comfort station, and a fire station designed in ac-
cordance with the guidelines. The guidelines
have exerted a major influence on the design of
concessioner facilities underway.

The guidelines are providing a servicewide proc-
ess and product model and are being used as a
benchmark for training courses on achieving vis-
ual quality in the National Park Service.

The guidelines have reestablished the emphasis
of unified architecture and landscape architecture
within a park and have provided the philosophy
and principles of rustic architecture and land-
scape architecture servicewide. They are unique
in providing guidelines for new construction in
developed areas of natural parks where the natu-
ral setting takes precedence.

The guidelines have been recognized throughout
the National Park Service as an example of what
is needed in many of our parks to guide develop-
ment activities. They have acted as a catalyst for
similar guidelines at the Grand Canyon National
Park, Gateway National Recreation Area, Mather
Memorial Parkway, and the Blue Ridge Parkway.

They have provided a needs awareness with sub-
sequent use in design contracts in Yellowstone,
prompted a funds request for guidelines at
Yosemite, and served as a model for completed
guidelines at Lake Mead National Recreation
Area. They have brought an awareness and a
"can-do" attitude for developing guidelines to
large and small parks alike.

The architectural/road character guidelines are
making a significant contribution in Sequoia and
Kings Canyon National Parks and to the NPS goal
of achieving visual quality in the national parks.*
The guidelines have provided a classic model in
process and product servicewide, resulting in
cost efficiencies during the design process and
the awareness and means of attaining aesthetic
quality.

VERGLADES NATIONAL PARK: VISUAL DESIGN
GUIDELINES DEVELOPMENT

John C. Hall

INTRODUCTION

An accelerated design and restoration process
has been underway at Everglades National Park
in response to the damages caused by Hurricane
Andrew on August 24, 1992. The hurricane
caused extensive damage throughout the park, in-
cluding substantial roof damage to fourteen build-
ings. The park's main visitor center at Parachute
Key and several other structures suffered addi-
tional damage.

The restoration process provided an opportunity
to improve the visitor center buildings and site
with particular emphasis on sustainable design
and compatibility with the natural environment
of the Everglades. The National Park Service
team assigned to this emergency action provided
guidance to the architects, landscape architects,
and site designers hired as consultants. The
team's design process included the development
of a visual themes guideline to help shape the
character and form of the new visitor center.

INITIAL FOCUS

The initial task of the design team was to survey
the damage and begin preparing recommenda-
tions for repairs to and replacement of damaged
structures. While recognizing that quick action
was needed to protect, reconstruct, or rehabilitate
the structures that had been damaged, the team
also saw an opportunity to rethink the basic
forms, materials, and architectural character of
the park facilities.

The existing visitor center was constructed during
the Mission 66 transitional period of NPS history.
During this era, contemporary structures were
added to many of the national parks, generally
without reference to regional vernacular architec-
ture and with little concern for visual compatibil-
ity with the natural environment. The hurricane
damage provided an opportunity to rethink this
earlier design decision and to develop a visual
themes guideline that would provide direction

for other reconstruction projects and future facili-
ties in the park.

The design team began a two part process of
structural research and analysis coupled with an
investigation of vernacular architecture and site
ecosystems that would serve as the basis for the
visual themes guideline.

THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

The river of grass originally flowed unobstructed
from Lake Okeechobee southward for over 100
miles to Florida Bay. Constriction of the river's
flow began in the 1950s as a result of drainage
measures undertaken to support regional agricul-
tural needs and urbanization. Human impacts on
the hydrology and ecological characteristics of
the Everglades are apparent throughout the re-
gion. Preservation of the original ecosystems
within the park is especially important because
of these widespread changes.

The park encompasses a variety of distinctive
natural environments that make up the Ever-
glades ecosystem. These include the shallow Flor-
ida Bay, coastal prairie, mangrove swamp, glades
and tree islands, and pine and hammock ridge.
These areas support a variety of plant and animal
communities that have developed as a result of
their geology, elevation, and hydrology. The eco-
systems have evolved in response to the climate
and natural phenomena of the region, including
drought, fire, hurricanes, and flooding.

As the design team evaluated the park's ecosys-
tem, it became apparent that the area occupied
by the damaged visitor center had been exten-
sively filled. The site had previously been a transi-
tional zone between the pinelands, hammock
ridge, and sawgrass. This led the team to con-
sider restoration of the site as part of the overall
visual theme for the new visitor center.

The pine and hammock ridge ecosystem yielded
a number of design cues that influenced the form

and character of the new visitor center, particu-
larly the vertical form of the slash pine and the
rounded form of the hardwood hammock. These
forms ultimately provided the inspiration for the
visual theme of the new visitor center that in-
cluded the strong exposed vertical structural ele-
ments of the main building. The rounded form of
the hammock is expressed in the roof form of
the main structure, reinforced by the proposed
planting of hardwoods and palms characteristic
of hammock formations.

VERNACULAR ARCHITECTURE

The investigation of regional vernacular architec-
ture began with the shelters built by the early Na-
tive American inhabitants of the park. The Native
Americans responded to the environment in the
Everglades by building "chickees," which are sim-
ple, pitched-roofed structures created from cy-

press trees and palm fronds. The early settlers
copied the Indians by developing light frame
structures, some of which can be seen today just
outside the park.

The U.S. Government responded to the coastal
environment in the construction of Coast Guard
stations, which were built with wood frame con-
struction placed on piles. As Florida developed af-
ter the arrival of the railroad, larger frame
structures were built, many evidencing the Victo-
rian character that was popular throughout the
country. With the reclamation of the land from
the swamps and the availability of oolite lime-
stone, sand and lime gave rise to stucco and ma-
sonry-walled buildings. The Mission style and
later the Art Deco style flourished in the Miami
area. From the island architecture of the Bahamas
came the Conch style, and the influence of boat
building in the area was also reflected in some of
the architecture.

FLORIDA BAY

COASTAL
PRAIRIE

MANGROVE
SWAMP

TREE-ISLAND GLADES

PINE AND
HAMMOCK RIOGE

AAjfc

Figures 1-3. Cross-sections of Everglades, pinelands and hammock, and visitor center and site.
(Drawings by LDR International, Inc.)

Figure 4: Example of modern day "cbickee" built by
Seminole Indians in the vicinity of Everglades National
Park. (Photograph by L. Kilbom)

While the south Florida vernacular developed
into the styles seen today in the region, the Ever-
glades was left with little of its own vernacular
style. The exception is the chickee, which is still
used for shelter. Since vernacular is defined as
"developed from a particular place or region," the
design team felt that the park vernacular should
grow from the earliest Native American architec-
ture and from the natural environment without
the influence of outside styles. The roof forms se-
lected for the visitor center evoke the indigenous
forms of the Native American chickee.

rived from the surrounding vertical pines, the de-
sign team decided to have the columns ex-
pressed as a continuous vertical element growing
from its point bearing to the flush tie beam at the
top. All other structural members would be set
back to emphasize the verticality of the columns.

Because flat roofs have proven to be difficult to
maintain in the park, a variety of roof pitches us-
ing truss systems were recommended, depending
on the program requirements of the building. A
minimum pitch of five-in-twelve was recom-
mended for small single buildings and up to a
ten-in-twelve for the main body of larger build-
ings where long spans are needed or where add-
on structures abut. These pitches were selected
to be in keeping with the roof pitch and form of
the native chickee.

With the potential for violent uplift during a hurri-
cane, roof overhang should not extend beyond
the beam. A variety of elevation options were ex-
plored to allow for the appearance of an over-
hang through the use of pocketed storm panels.

The product of the structural systems investiga-
tion and preliminary design was the development
of a hypothetical combination of the selected ele-
ments. Figure 6 shows how a "kit-of-parts" can
be used in the park and illustrates some of the
key features of the system proposed.

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

While the vernacular architecture was being stud-
ied, a structural investigation was undertaken by
the design team's structural engineers, architects,
and park maintenance staff. The structural evalu-
ation included review of damage reports, on-site
review of structural failures, and the development
of alternate systems. The objective of the process
was the development of a structural system that
could withstand future storms, be maintained by
on-site park staff, and be compatible with the pro-
posed visual themes guideline.

Elements of the structural system that had the
most potential for influence on the visual theme
were the framing system and roof design. Two
key design elements of the recommended struc-
tural framing system will create a consistent vis-
ual form for Everglades structures - the tie beam
and the column. In keeping with the form de-

PROPOSED SITE RESTORATION

Because restoration of the site is an integral part
of the new visual themes guideline, the design
team prepared illustrative drawings to explore
the various restoration options. A photograph of
existing conditions was used as a base to illus-
trate the proposed building and site design (fig-
ure 7).

Guidelines for site restoration were developed
based on recent experience with experimental
plots developed at the Everglades Research Cen-
ter. Historic hydrological records for the visitor
center site were correlated with findings from the
restoration test plots. The park's landscape archi-
tect and research center staff assisted in the devel-
opment of detailed criteria for restoration that
included plant material selection and hydrope-
riod elevation criteria.

METAL ROOF

ROOFPfTCH
MINIMUM 6/12
MAXIMUM: 10/12

SOLID SOFFIT
STORM PANEL

Figure 5. Cross-section
showing potential
material locations
and pocketed storm
panels.

Figure 6. Schematic
"Kit-of-Parts".

I SHUTTERS
(STORM PANELS)

Figure 7. Existing site
photo. (Photograph by
Hank Alinger, LDR
International, Inc.)

Figure 8. Aerial
perspective of the
visitor center.
(Architecture: Grieves,
Worrall, Wright &
O'Hanick, Site Design/
Landscape
Architecture: LDR
International, Inc.)

ECTION m:

Selected Annotated Bibliography

Carol Whittaker, Rick Dorrance,
Dennis Nagao, & Ervin H. Zube

ELECTED ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carol Whittaker, Rick Dorrance, Dennis Nagao, & Ervin H. Zube

Alesch, R.

1987 Evaluating and managing rural cultural
landscapes in the National Park System.
In Aesthetics of the rural renaissance:
Proceedings of the 1987 conference.
California Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo, CA.

An innovative management plan is de-
scribed for the rural agricultural land-
scape in Buffalo National River. The
plan defines visual elements of land use
and architecture that should be pre-
served in the historic buildings. The
plan permits private agricultural use
and changes in the landscape and archi-
tecture that might be necessary. This is
one of the only applications of design
guidelines that addresses the dynamic
aspects of land use and still protects vis-
ual quality.

American Society of Civil Engineers, Committee
on Geometries and Esthetics of Highway
Location and Design

1977 Practical highway esthetics. New York.

This report is an engineers' response to
concerns about visual quality in high-
way planning. It includes a discussion
of the issues involved, including high-
way safety and aesthetics. What follows
is essentially a design manual, with
guidelines covering highway/terrain fit,
continuity of line and grade, highway lo-
cation, merging the highway into the
landscape, designing the right-of-way,
vegetation, highway structures, and
road furniture, and improving the ap-
pearance of existing highways. There is
also a set of guiding rules for three di-
mensional appearance and the use of
contoured grading plans. Graphics in-
clude sketches, photographs, and com-
puter images designed to illustrate
concepts in the text. All graphics are
captioned.

Arendt, R. and Yaro, R.D.

1987 Rural landscape planning in the
Connecticut River valley of
Massachusetts. In Aesthetics of the rural
renaissance: Proceedings of the 1987
conference. California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo, CA.

The design recommendations presented
in this article address cutting-edge use
of design guidelines. The authors have
identified visual land use patterns typi-
cal in traditional landscapes of the
Connecticut River valley and propose
design guidelines that would permit al-
ternative land uses while maintaining
the visual character of the landscape.
The recommendations center around
the clustering of buildings, shared drive-
ways, and setbacks from roads. This is
an example of design guidelines that
permit suburban residential develop-
ment and still retain the visual character
of rural agricultural patterns.

Beasley, E.

1986 Reviewing new construction projects in
historic areas. National Trust for
Historic Preservation, Northeast
Regional Office, Boston, MA.

A short how-to manual for conducting
surveys of areas of historic and architec-
tural significance and to establish de-
sign guidelines and design review
boards to control and monitor the addi-
tion of new buildings in historic districts.

Brolin, B.

1980 Architecture in context: Fitting new
buildings with old. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co. New York, NY.

This is one of the few books that deals
entirely with the visual compatibility of
architecture. The introductory and con-
cluding chapters are text while the

remaining chapters present photo-
graphs of examples in an approach simi-
lar to case studies. Some photographs
include overlays of alternative architec-
tural treatments. The examples are
drawn from Europe and North America.
Included are two appendixes - one cov-
ering questions for architects about de-
signing in context, the other a
handbook for communities concerned
about visual continuity.

City of Lake Oswego

1988 Lake Oswego urban design plan: A

guidebook for development of the East
End. Lake Oswego, OR.

This urban design plan includes basic
objectives and a plan concept. The de-
sign guidelines are intended to direct
the implementation of the plan concept
for specific districts, including such ele-
ments as trees and pavement texture
changes, signs, street furniture, building
height, and architectural detailing. The
specifications for elements, materials,
and detail are often vague. Graphics in-
clude maps and conceptual sketches.
Section two is a summary of issues and
principles of urban form as they relate
to Lake Oswego.

City of Portland

1983 Downtown design guidelines. Bureau of
Planning. Portland, OR.

Portland's downtown design guidelines
are based on a set of goals derived
from a theme study done in 1972. To
implement those goals, a set of 20
guidelines were outlined. Elements cov-
ered by these guidelines include the
city block structure, pedestrians and
pathways, continuity and compatibility
in design, stopping places, plazas and
walks, and structures over the right-of-
way. Also included are guidelines for
special districts within downtown Port-
land. Graphics are primarily photo-
graphs with some maps of applicable
areas. Graphic captions are explanatory
as well as illustrative.

City of Santa Fe

1986 Historical district handbook. Santa Fe,

NM.

Santa Fe's Historical District Handbook
provides an example of the use of de-
sign themes, standards, and guidelines
as developed by urban designers' inter-
pretations of the city's historic district or-
dinance. With a short summary, it
defines the basic historic theme of
"Pueblo Spanish," as well as the architec-
tural character (design theme) of each
of the city's historic districts. Design
standards are specified for such ele-
ments as building massing, color, open-
ings, roofs, materials, portals,
overhangs, solar features, walls/fences,
and parking. Design guidelines include
scale, continuity of streetscape, and
roofs. Graphics with captions are used
to provide examples of appropriate and
unacceptable elements.

City of Santa Fe

1982 Architectural design review guidelines.
Santa Fe, NM.

These are architectural design guide-
lines for the city of Santa Fe, prepared
by representatives of the Santa Fe chap-
ter of the American Institute of Archi-
tects. They concentrate on the elements
of massing and scale, surface materials
and texture, solar design features, exte-
rior space, color, and signs. Graphics in-
clude photographs and sketches
illustrating good and bad examples.

Cooper-Marcus, C. and W. Sarkissian

1986 Housing as if people mattered: site de-
sign guidelines for medium-density fam-
ily housing. University of California
Press. Berkeley, CA.

This book provides an excellent exam-
ple of guidelines written for the needs
and interests of designers. It distills the
findings from approximately 100 post-
occupancy housing evaluation studies
plus related research from the environ-
ment-behavior field. The authors

Cox, W.
1988

distinguish among the varying housing
needs of different groups using criteria
such as age, gender, and health. Guide-
lines generally include text, design alter-
natives, and illustrations, and relate
specifically to site planning for low-rise,
medium- and high-density housing.

The Secretary of the Interior's standards
for rehabilitation. Preservation Forum,
vol. 2:2. pp. 2-5; Jandl, H. Ward. (1988).
Preservation Forum, 2(2):6-9;
Gwathmey, C. (1987). Viewpoints:
Design review. Preservation Forum,
l(l):2-4; and Fitch, J.M. (1987).
Preservation Forum. l(l):5-7.

This is a series of comment and re-
sponse guest editorials in an historic
preservation periodical/newsletter. The
first set deals with The Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation;
the second with the use of design guide-
lines. The authors are all practitioners
with direct experience in designing
buildings under the constraints of de-
sign guidelines that call for compatible
architecture. Contradictory viewpoints
supporting and opposing the restric-
tions of design guidelines are presented.

Duerksen, Christopher J.

1986 Aesthetics and land-use controls: beyond
ecology and economics. American Plan-
ning Association. Planning Advisory
Service Report #399- Chicago, IL.

This is one of the best reviews of the
use of design guidelines in residential
neighborhoods and central business dis-
tricts. The author reviews the legal his-
tory of judicial decisions and provides
summary quotes from applied design
guidelines and judicial decisions that
support their use. This article is ori-
ented toward law.

Esherick Homsey Dodge and Davis, et al
1989 Sequoia and Kings Canyon national

parks architectural character guidelines.
Government Printing Office.
Washington, D.C.

Six exemplary buildings from within the
parks are analyzed to identify salient
elements of the rustic designs, including
siting, roof treatment, foundation/lower
walls, entrances, windows, doors, and
architectural details. Design guidelines
are presented relating to site character,
overall building form, facades, and land-
scape details. Buildings, design ele-
ments, and concepts are illustrated
throughout the report with photographs
and line drawings. This is one of three
related reports on design guidelines for
the two parks.

Farbstein, J. and Associates, and Min Kantrowitz
and Associates, Incorporated

1986 Design aesthetics and postal image:
final report. San Luis Obispo, CA.

This report is essentially a theme study
- a discussion of the U.S. Postal Service
image and its role in planning facilities.
Through an extensive set of focused in-
terviews and surveys, the consultants
found the most important elements of
post office images are friendliness, iden-
tifiability, efficiency, and as a symbol of
America. Their recommendations for im-
plementation of the design themes are
mostly policy oriented, although there
are some suggestions about guidelines.
Graphics include photographs of good
examples and sketches of suggested de-
sign treatments. The major significance
of this study is in its use of public and
employee surveys and interviews as a
primary source of information about de-
sign images.

Giamberdine, R. and Goodrich, T.

1990 Sequoia and Kings Canyon National
Parks road character guidelines.
National Park Service, Denver Service
Center, Government Printing Office.
Washington, DC.

The stated purpose of this report is "to
establish a design style and theme for
road-related details . . . that is based on
the principles of rustic design." An
analysis of both road details and the ex-
isting road character is presented in
text, maps, and photographs. Design
recommendations are discussed and il-
lustrated with perspective sketches for
grading and revegetation, and for site
details, including materials, walls, curbs,
. drainage features, guardrails, signs, turn-
outs, and parking. This is one of three
related reports on design guidelines for
the two parks.

Glassford, Peggy

1983 Appearance codes for small communi-
ties. Planning Advisory Service Report
#379. American Planning Association,
Chicago, IL.

A review of the design guidelines used
in central business district and residen-
tial neighborhoods. Focused primarily
on towns surrounding Chicago where
there is an established tradition of using
design guidelines. The author describes
review procedures and a typical code
and presents the data from a survey
sent to eight communities with design
guidelines. The analysis contains a short
legal review of regulating aesthetics and
four appendixes covering definitions,
criteria, submittal requirements, and a
sample application form.

Good, A.H.

1938 Park & recreation structures. National
Park Service. Reprinted, 1990,
Graybooks, Boulder, CO.

An expansion of an earlier work pub-
lished in 1935, this is a reprint of the
classic reference on rustic design with a
new introduction by historian L.S. Ham-
son. It dominated the design of struc-
tures and facilities in national, state,

county, and metropolitan parks until
the 1950s. The book is organized into
sections representing specific facility
types such as entrances, check stations,
bridges, and community buildings. Each
section is amply illustrated with plans
and photographs.

Groat, L.

1984 "Public Opinions of Contextual Fit."
Architecture. November:72-76.

1983 "Measuring the fit of old to new.

Architecture, The American Institute of
A rch itect sjou rnal. November: 58-61.

Groat, L. and Canter, D.

1979 "Does post-modernism communicate?"
Progressive Architecture. December:84-

87.

Groat is one of the few researchers who
has studied public perceptions of fit or
compatibility between old and new ar-
chitecture. The 1979 and 1983 articles
represent the authors' professional judg-
ment about what the public might
think. The 1984 article reports the re-
sults of research that finds replication of
the facade to be the most important fac-
tor in public perceptions of compatibil-
ity. The research is presented* in a
nontechnical, easy-to-read format. Each
of the articles is illustrated (including in
the 1984 article) with photographs of
the buildings the public found compat-
ible and those judged incompatible.

Habe, R.
1987

Seeking community character compati-
bility for small town and rural communi-
ties: The role of the design guidelines/
design review method, in Aesthetics of
the rural renaissance: Proceedings of the
1987 conference. California Polytechnic
State University. San Luis Obispo, CA.

This article presents design guidelines
from a planners perspective. It summa-
rizes the response from 15 California
communities with design guidelines. It
covers four main concerns - whether
the method adequately addresses
unique qualities, whose aesthetic judg-
ments should be the standard, whether

guidelines should be limited to aes-
thetic criteria, and whether compatibil-
ity should be limited to uniformity and
replication. The author provides recom-
mendations based on the responses.
These recommendations include basing
guidelines on harmony with the natural
environment, communitywide studies of
perceptions, using special districts, pre-
vention of excessive uniformity, and the
inclusion of more nonaesthetic criteria.

Harrison, L.S.

1989 Sequoia and Kings Canyon National

Parks inventory of significant structures,
architectural character guidelines.
Washington, D.C. Government Printing
Office.

This is one of three reports on design
guidelines for the two parks. It presents
a history of development in the parks
and an inventory of 90 historic build-
ings. No backcountry structures are in-
cluded. Each building is located on
vicinity maps, illustrated, and docu-
mented as to date of construction and
significant architectural features. The re-
port is intended to serve as a source
book for designers. It concludes with a
summary of specific architectural fea-
tures of the historic park structures.

1986 Architecture in the parks national his-
toric landmark theme study. Govern-
ment Printing Office. Washington, D.C.

This is a report of nominations of na-
tional park structures for landmark
status. It includes a brief history of de-
sign in the parks up to World War II.
Also included is a brief commentary on
the post-war Gateway Arch (designed
in 1947) at Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial National Historical Park. The
major portion of the report consists of
copies of the inventory nomination
forms with supporting maps and photo-
graphs for 30 individual buildings and
historic districts.

Lang, J. C.

1978 Building with Nantucket in mind.

Nantucket Historic District Commission.
Nantucket, MA.

This is an outstanding example of local
design guidelines covering all land-
scapes on Nantucket. While many of
the guidelines cover architecture in the
historic developed areas, there is a sec-
ond set of guidelines applied to new de-
velopment in more natural settings. The
guidelines are tailored to natural topog-
raphy and the vegetative communities
on the island. The guidelines for devel-
opment outside the towns have been
skillfully crafted to identify features that
should be preserved. The use of native
vegetation to screen new development
is also described.

Marans, Robert W, and Stokols, D. (Eds.)
1993 Environmental Simulation Research
and Policy Issues. Plenum Press. New
York.

A long-awaited contribution to the litera-
ture, this edited volume brings together
chapters that address applications is-
sues, simulation techniques, and policy
implications of the uses of simulation
for environmental decision making. The
environments addressed range from the
scale of individual rooms to entire land-
scapes. Both static and dynamic simula-
tion techniques and applications are
addressed. Other topics addressed in-
clude the uses of simulation for citizen
participation in planning and design re-
view and as a research tool to advance
understanding of human/environment
relationships.

Nakata Planning Group, Incorporated

1986 Presidio of San Francisco design guide.
Nakata Planning Group, Inc. Colorado
Springs, CO.

As part of the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area and the oldest continu-
ously active military installation in the
United States (established by the Span-
ish in 1776), the Presidio of San Fran-
cisco is an unique historic and scenic
landscape. The design guide for the

Presidio is both a theme and guideline
study. The theme is established through
an examination of the military mission
of the installation, the environmental
features of the site, the recreational and
open spaces, historic values, and visual
images of the various neighborhoods of
the Presidio. Design guidelines concen-
trate on architecture, landscape design,
and site systems. Maps and illustrations
(photos and sketches) are keyed to the
text and captioned. Also included are
sections on design concept applications
and a design review checklist.

National Park Service

1988 Housing design and rehabilitation
guideline NPS -76. Washington, D.C.

This looseleaf manual addresses park
housing design, regulations, and reha-
bilitation. The design section includes
subsections on design themes, site and
individual unit design guidelines, build-
ing materials, cost analysis, funding,
and specifications. An important addi-
tion is the section on employee housing
preferences based on survey data from
both seasonal and permanent employ-
ees. The manual provides basic informa-
tion and is intended to be a dynamic
document with revisions being issued
as new information becomes available.

1 987 Gu idelinesfor desig n of fee collection fa-
cilities. Denver Service Center, Denver,
CO.

A history of the design and function of
entry stations is presented in photo-
graphs, plans, and text. Seven basic ki-
osk structures are diagrammed together
with lists of important design considera-
tions, optional design features, site fea-
tures, and equipment features.
Dimensions of public and private motor
vehicles and diagrams of road cross-sec-
tions are included. An appendix by bu-
reau historian B. Mackintosh presents a
brief history of visitor fees in the na-
tional park system.

1987 National sign system study. Denver Serv-
ice Center. Denver, CO.

The evolution of sign design in the na-
tional park system is illustrated and cate-
gorized as encompassing three eras:
rustic, Mission 66, and highway safety.
A brief analysis of the NPS design sys-
tem and of various state park systems is
included. Insensitive signs and aesthetic
integrated park sign systems are illus-
trated. Problems and recommendations
are discussed in reference to manage-
ment, planning and design, production
and procurement, maintenance, and re-
search.

1 987 Visual compatibility gu idelines Ebey 's

Landing National Historical Reserve. Pa-
cific Northwest Regional Office, Engi-
neering/Design & Maintenance
Division. Seattle, WA.

This report is intended to "serve as a
source for detail design decisions that
are made on a daily basis ..." the de-
tails reflect the cultural and natural con-
texts of the reserve, elements of which
are presented in both photographs and
text. Landscape character areas are iden-
tified and mapped, as are sites that
have been selected for interpretive way-
sides. Design details are provided for
specific areas, including site develop-
ment and site furniture. General design
recommendations are contained in a
brief appendix.

1 979 Cape Hatteras National Seashore Design
Manual. MTMA Design Group, Denver.

The Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Design Manual is a primer that uses the
ecology of North Carolina as the con-
text for outlining principles of design
and construction appropriate to this and
similar locales. These principles apply
to facilities, their siting, and their use.
They carry information valuable to archi-
tects, landscape architects, and those
who manage visitors and resources or
maintain buildings and structures. The
manual covers natural systems, local ar-
chitectural styles, and the design proc-
ess and principles. It is a primer in the

best sense - it provides the basics of de-
sign for those whose jobs are periph-
eral, but related, to the design
disciplines, including site managers and
maintenance supervisors. It also pro-
vides design professionals with the spe-
cific opportunities and constraints
inherent in the cultural and physical
ecology of the Outer Banks of the
Carolinas. It provides both basics and
specifics through a simple, seamless,
and user-friendly integration of informal
text and illustration.

n.d. Turkey Creek Unit architectural theme

study, visitor center, headquarters, main-
tenance facility. Big Thicket National
Preserve, TX.

This report establishes a design theme
for the first design and construction pro-
jects at the preserve. Past and present ar-
chitectural themes in the region are
presented in text, drawings, and photo-
graphs. Lacking strong regional models,
a contemporary design theme is pre-
sented to project an image emphasizing
the Man and the Biosphere concept.
Factors listed as affecting the theme in-
clude climate, energy conservation,
building materials, formal design ele-
ments, and symbolism.

National Park Service and New England River

Basins Commission.

1975 Shoreline Appearance and Design A

Planning Handbook. Roy Mann Associ-
ates, Inc. Boston, MA

The coastal Zone Management Act of
1972 directed attention to the multiple
values of coastal zones, including visual
values. This report provides an excel-
lent model for extending concerns with
visual values to landscapes that range
in scale from the region to cities, towns,
and sites. The entire coastline of Long
Island Sound is the region of concern.
Based upon an inventory that first cate-
gorized shorescape types, visual ele-
ments are identified, including
outstanding scenic assets, eyesores, defi-
cits, intrusions, and significant view-
points. Criteria are specified for
protecting existing visual quality and for

future development in the various shore-
scape types. Shorescape types fall into
several major categories and are based
on natural geomorphological charac-
teristics and built environments. Design
guidelines are presented for develop-
ment in both natural and cultural land-
scapes.

National Trust for Historic Preservation

1980 Old and new architecture design rela-
tionship. The Preservation Press. Wash-
ington, D.C.

This is a collection of 18 papers pre-
sented at a conference of the same
name. The majority of the authors are
architects. The papers cover a wide
range of ideas about appropriate design
and institutional approaches to adding
new structures to historic areas. Argu-
ments both for and against the use of
design guidelines and design review
boards are presented. A significant fea-
ture is the extensive use of photogra-
phy to illustrate topics and issues such
as compatibility of design styles and ap-
proaches to the design of infill struc-
tures for historic districts.

National Park Service, Park Historic Architecture

Division

1984 Cultural landscapes, rural historic dis-
tricts in the National Park System. Mel-
nick, Robert Z., Sponn, D. and Saxe,
E.J. Washington D.C.

The guidelines and procedures that
have been promulgated for protecting
historic buildings often do not include
cultural landscapes. This report ad-
dresses the following as elements to be
considered in protecting rural cultural
landscapes: spatial organization; land
use activities, circulation networks, clus-
ter arrangements of farms, and vegeta-
tion related to land use. The authors
cover planning, identification, evalu-
ation, and management options in sepa-
rate chapters. The publication is
illustrated with photographs and line
drawings. This is a pioneering effort of
the National Park Service, moving be-
yond preservation/protection focused
exclusively on buildings.

Poole, Samuel E. III.

1987 Architectural appearance review regula-
tions and the first amendment: the
good, the bad, and the consensus ugly.
The Urban Laivyer. 19(2): 287-344.

This article presents legal issues in the
use of design review. The author first
provides an overview of the purposes
for design review and discusses five
case studies: the Vieux Carre; landmark
protection in New York City; Coral Ga-
bles, Florida; New York City planning
requirements for open space; and de-
sign guidelines in residential Lake For-
rest, Illinois. The author then presents a
review of the law in the context of each
of these examples. His primary findings
are that architectural review ordinances
are regulations of architectural expres-
sion, but only the ordinances forbid-
ding excessive dissimilarity are
unconstitutional.

Schmertz, M.F.

1993 "Dictating Design.
83(2):33-35.

Architecture.

Following a brief description of the evo-
lution of design guidelines and the role
of design review boards, the author pre-
sents a summary of an international
symposium held in Cincinnati, Ohio, on
the interrelationships between design
guidelines and design review. Also in-
cluded is a report on a survey of 170 de-
sign firms' experiences with and
attitudes about design review. The
author concludes that "design review,
along with some form of guidelines, ap-
pears to be here to stay" and recom-
mends that design guidelines be
incorporated with zoning ordinances.

Stanton, Boles, Maguire, and Church

1966 A report on appearance planning for

BPA (Bonneville Power Authority). Stan-
ton, Boles, Maguire, and Church.

Electric power substations and transmis-
sion lines are not known for their sce-
nic beauty, and the Bonneville Power
Authority (BPA) commissioned Stanton,
et al. to develop a concept for making
power facilities and equipment more

visually compatible with the surround-
ing landscape. The consultants recom-
mended a systemwide uniformity of
design of all elements in the power sys-
tem - with consistent use of materials,
shapes, patterns, and colors. They rec-
ommended a consistent design theme
and made a set of proposals that repre-
sent incipient guidelines for power sub-
stations and transmission lines.
Diagrams and sketches include explana-
tory captions.

Taliesin Associated Architects

n.d. Master design guidelines. Taliesin Associ-
ated Architects. Scottsdale, AZ.

These guidelines are meant to protect
the visual quality and desert landscape
of Desert Mountain, a residential devel-
opment near Scottsdale, Arizona. Desert
Mountain is on the urban fringe of the
Phoenix Metropolitan Area, bounded
on the north by Tonto National Forest.
This document provides an example of
the approach taken by students of
Frank Lloyd Wright in protecting a sce-
nic and sensitive desert landscape. The
guidelines outline the review and ap-
proval process, site development guide-
lines, architectural design standards,
and construction regulations. They also
include a glossary of definitions and
lists of approved and prohibited plants.
The only graphics show examples of
building masses.

Teichert, J.E.

1989 Olympic National Park visual themes.
Olympic National Park. Port Angeles,

WA.

This looseleaf manual addresses the
parkwide theme of wilderness and sub-
themes of alpine, forest, and coastal ar-
eas. Areas that require special attention
within each subtheme are identified
and their history and uses noted. Visual
management objectives and guidelines
are included for buildings, site struc-
tures, site furniture, utility structures,
signs, roads, and trails. Parkwide design
details are included. It represents a com-
prehensive approach to park themes
and guidelines and is designed for ease
of use, revision, and expansion.

The Sea Ranch Association

1985 The Sea Ranch Design Manual. Sea
Ranch, CA.

The Sea Ranch is a residential develop-
ment on the northern California coast. It
is a 5,000-acre tract of land on a for-
merly wild section of coast of immense
scenic value and sensitivity. The pur-
pose of the design manual is to provide
guidelines for new developments that
do not detract from the existing natural
environment. The manual includes a
summary of important physical factors
and recommendations for design adapta-
tion. There is also a listing of design re-
strictions and recommendations about
such items as height limits, roof slope,
forms and materials, exterior wall col-
ors, windows and skylights, founda-
tions, outdoor structures, and fencing.
Graphics used are illustrative of architec-
tural styles appropriate to the develop-
ment; they are not keyed into the text.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage

Conservation and Recreation Service.

1980 Rural preservation: a perspective and a
challenge. Stipe, Robert E. In New Direc-
tions in Rural Preservation. Washington
D.C.

This chapter of the edited volume *
serves as a descriptive introduction to is-
sues in protection of rural landscapes
and starts with a brief historical review
from the 1960s and the passage of the
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. That
is followed by a summary of issues
such as defining rural resources, the ap-
plicability of established legal proce-
dures in rural landscapes, poverty, and
planning considerations. Stipe con-
cludes with projections from the 1980s
for what the future may hold. The con-
cerns - threats to rural landscapes and
the unlikelihood of a comprehensive na-
tional land use policy, seem as current
in the 90s as in the 80s.

1980 The role of historic preservation in to-
morrow's rural landscape. Tishler, Wil-
liam H. In New Directions in Rural
Preservation. Washington D.C.

The author makes a strong case for the
protection of rural landscapes. He notes

that traditional preservation has not un-
derstood or addressed countryside is-
sues. He called for new approaches to
preservation in rural areas. These ap-
proaches can include the use of remote
sensing and the work of cultural geogra-
phers and folklorists. Tishler notes that
historic preservation efforts must encom-
pass understanding of the land and
natural ecological processes. While not
delineating design guidelines or design
review recommendations, he discusses
underlying issues that relate to moving
historic preservation beyond strict atten-
tion to buildings and defining historic
districts as small clusters of buildings to
cultural patterns on the landscape.

Williams, N., Jr., E.H. Kellog and P.M. Lavigne
1987 Vermont townscape. Rutgers University,
Center for Urban Policy Research. New
Brunswick, NJ.

This book provides a visual analysis of
thirty Vermont towns and the contex-
tual factors of changes affecting them.
Significant elements of visual amenity
and town image are identified along
with the distinguishing forms and de-
tails of the prevailing pre- World War I
house types. Recommendations are
given for protecting town image and vis-
ual amenity. Concepts and examples
are illustrated with photographs, plans,
and diagrams.

Yunk, R.A.

1989 Architectural theme study Buffalo

National River. National Park Service,
Denver Service Center, Denver, CO.

The design theme in this report is estab-
lished through brief inventories of both
the natural and cultural landscapes,
with greater detail given to document-
ing local vernacular architecture in both
text and drawings. The design theme is
described as drawing upon principles
of the rustic design ethic and is illus-
trated with the use of conceptual design
guidelines that include: energy/climate,
site character, spatial composition of
structures, elements of building forms
and landscape details.

vUS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1993-839644

DATE DUE

SEP 1 b ZUU3

nFP. 1 4 2003

FEB 1 o PfT*

DEMCO, INC. 38-2931

^jfe

As the nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of
our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and
water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and
cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through
outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that
their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen
participation in their care. The department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation
communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration.

NPS D-903 October 1993

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Visual Quality of Built Environments in National Parks"

See other formats